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 On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. 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. 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. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. 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)

File:Stade de la Mosson.JPG

File:Stade de la Mosson.JPG - I came across this image which is tagged with both a CC and fair use license, I don't know which one applies. Elfalem (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• It came from http://mfe11.free.fr/photos_div/Mosson/mosson5.jpg , it is more a case of unknown copyright. It certainly is not fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The website, http://mfe11.free.fr/, has a copyright notice on every page. Just because you can link to the photos directly does not mean they are public domain. QuentinUK (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Image from the Library of Congress - PD or not?

Hi, I wonder whether or not this image of Judge Julian Mack (c1912) is in public domain. It's stated under 'Rights Advisory' that "No copyright restriction known for government issued photographs for for images copyrighted more than 75 years ago" - but on the other hand, under 'Notes' they mention "Copyright by Harris & Ewing, Washington, D.C.". What's the bottom line then? Thanks, Aviados (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if it was published before 1923 in the US it is public domain, and this looks to be so. You should be able to examine the copyright record number listed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so it probably IS public domain. But if I want to make sure - where and how can I examine its copyright record number? (which is what, J168549?) Aviados (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See http://books.google.com.au/books?id=xg8DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA230&lpg=PA230&dq=J168549&source=bl&ots=mNLQYXEtoX&sig=dvmGlKgSkAv8m7qCRn1g7turVZM&hl=en&ei=ig4sTbGRG5GevQOatrG_CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false your picture is registerd March 18 1912, definately expired. Found in Catalog of copyright entries: Works of art. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I see.. Thank you very much! Aviados (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner

What are the thoughts regarding the upload of File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg? I have one source stating that it was handed out by the U.S. Marshals Service and another cited by the uploader that it was taken by the Pima County Sheriff's Office. Would the historic argument apply for non-free rationale in this case? KimChee (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Another discussion (now archived) was started about its fair use in more than one article. KimChee (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC) / 22:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the deletion discussion for anyone who is interested. KimChee (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

need help about copyright tag for Ababil 01.jpg

this is a free image from an Advertising Leaflet with no limited problem from exact source diomil.ir but the source recently is unavailable & for this i need a bit help please!! (talk), 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The source you provided for File:Ababil 01.jpg shows a clear copyright notice and as you have not linked to the page the image is on, we cannot check your claim that the image is free. Also, most images found on websites and on advertising material are copyright to someone even if there is no copyright notice, so unless you can show evidence that the image is freely licenced I am sorry to tell you that we cannot use it here. ww2censor (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Public Domain and User question

Hi, File:Mary Seacole Drawing.jpg this picture remains in Public Domain, the User is Liftarn. I need to use it in a book, which is gonna appear as e-book version, print version on demand. In terms of commercial usage of downloaded picture of Mary Seacole from Wilkipedia, what do I need to know ab license conditions ab this specific image. Is the fact that the drawing is in PDomein enough, what user means in here - does he hold copyright of the drawing. What other clearences would I have to make, if any to use downloaded copy of drawing in book.

Same with File:Joseph Karl Stieler-Lola Montez1847.jpg Can I use downloaded copy from Wilkipedia in my commercial book or do I have to obtain permission from "Gallery of Beauties" in Munich, where the original is?

File:FrenchBattleOfTheAlma.JPG In case of this drawing, do I have to obtain permission from Encyclopedie Larousse or anybody else?

File:Black Sea map.png This map is created by its user for example and is GFDL licensed - which states that reusers are free to make copy,distribute, even commercially..how does it apply with regards to my book?

Many thanks for your help, Paulina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.142.106 (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea of the material at commons or on Wikipedia is that no permission needs to be requested as it is already given or not needed. For those public domain items if you believe the statements you can use them freely. For the GFDL items you can read the GFDL license document, which will tell you that you can reproduce the item, and that you have to include the license and credit the author, which you could do in small print at the back of your book. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Public Domain and User question

Hi, File:Mary Seacole Drawing.jpg this picture remains in Public Domain, the User is Liftarn. I need to use it in a book, which is gonna appear as e-book version, print version on demand. In terms of commercial usage of downloaded picture of Mary Seacole from Wilkipedia, what do I need to know ab license conditions ab this specific image. Is the fact that the drawing is in PDomein enough, what user means in here - does he hold copyright of the drawing. What other clearences would I have to make, if any to use downloaded copy of drawing in book.

Same with File:Joseph Karl Stieler-Lola Montez1847.jpg Can I use downloaded copy from Wilkipedia in my commercial book or do I have to obtain permission from "Gallery of Beauties" in Munich, where the original is?

File:FrenchBattleOfTheAlma.JPG In case of this drawing, do I have to obtain permission from Encyclopedie Larousse or anybody else?

File:Black Sea map.png This map is created by its user for example and is GFDL licensed - which states that reusers are free to make copy,distribute, even commercially..how does it apply with regards to my book?

Many thanks for your help, 62.231.142.106 (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the tags the first three are in the public domain because their copyrights have expired. If those tags are correct, nobody owns rights for which you need permission. The map is licensed under both GFDL and Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. You choose one of the two licenses and then fulfill the terms of that license. —teb728 t c 00:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright language required for original painting?

What sort of language should I put down to indicate I received permission from the copyright holder? I've uploaded a picture of a painting by a deceased artist. The copyright is held by his family, who have extended permission to reproduce it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverter (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You will have to state the nature of the license granted, and if it is permission to use on Wikipedia then the item will be deleted, as it has to be free for everyone, such as CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. You will have to explain who the original creator was, and who now owns the copyright and why, and then prove that the copyright holder has granted the license, since that person is not you. This can be done using the WP:PERMIT procedure. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

http://photogallery.indiatimes.com/parties/mumbai/zee-rishtey-awards-bash/Sharad-Kelkar/photo/5576168/Sharad-Kelkar.jpg

Hello There,

I would like to upload the subject image. Please assist me in the same as I do not know how to go about it.

Regards,

Tinasinster (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been told several times now. The answer is: don't upload it at all. There simply is no way "how to go about it." Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Copy Right - General knowledge found in "101" College Courses

There are quite a few graphs in Economics, including but not limited to, Cost Structure in a "Competitive"/"Monopolistic" Firm, Consumer Behavior with Budget Constraints, that are taught in the very first economics class (Economics "101" so to speak) that ars thought of as "General Knowledge" in the community of economics and financial professionals. Many of these items date back to Alfred Marshal, Adam Smith (the 'father' of modern economic thought). It is for this reason the professional financial community now treat such graphs (and even some statements) as "General Knowledge" that no longer need 'foot noting' in modern day college papers or classroom discussions. It is treated much like a graphical picture of a "Quadratic Function" in a College Algebra class; just common knowledge the origins of which do not matter in our modern day math discussions/writing (unless the class or book focused only on "the History of Mathdmatics" (in which we might discuss some people as Descarte or Euclid). In these cases college professors find it use less to "foot note" such "General Knowledge".

Yet I have been told that one of my graphs for economics, which only shows the "General Knowledge" associated with the "Cost Structure" of a firm, found in the basic "Theory of the Firm", dating back even to Alfred Marshal, needs a foot note. Yet, I did provide Foot notes of several "E phonics 101" text books that directly refer to these graphs!!

My question ismore of a statement; why is there a threat ofremoving these items on the basis of a lack of foot notes (see 'Monopoly profit' graphs)?? Especially when the bask graphs can befound in the college texts that are already foot noted in the articles?? This just does not make sense.

Please che k the quoted references in the articles. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmwki (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia readers are not all economists and something that may be "common knowledge" among economists does not equate to common knowledge to the average person on the street. Our verification policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be properly footnoted. The content you wish to add has been challenged and thus needs a footnote no matter how "common knowledge" it is. But if it is, as you say, such common knowledge in every Econ 101 textbook, providing a reference shouldnt be very difficult. Try books.google.com. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Katrina Hodgkinson.jpg

I have just uploaded a photograph of Katrina Hodgkinson MP, (Katrina Hodgkinson.jpg) and I have been told it does not have the appropriate copyright notification and may be removed.

I work in Katrina's office and the photograph is a standard publicity shot which has been sent widely to many newspapers and published by them, and is also available from our website.

As the owners of the copyright in this office is happy to make this photograph freely available so I would appreciate your advice as to the correct code I should use to allow this photograph to be retained on her page?

Regards David white (user ID: burrinjuck) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrinjuck (talk • contribs) 01:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC) — Burrinjuck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi David, we don't accept publicity photos just because they have been widely available for press purposes, we need such images to be freely licenced which most publicity images are not. While the image is on this webpage at a low resolution, the page carries a clear copyright notice which is why we must have the copyright holder of the image verify their permission to our OTRS team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT after reading donating copyrighted materials. The image you mention above (that you uploaded) is called File:Hodgkinson portrait formal.jpg but the image Katrina Hodgkinson.jpg is already freely licenced commons image; it was perfectly good before you removed it from the article without any explanation as to why you replaced it. If you can get The Nationals NSW to send their us permission you can tell us here or tag the image with the {{OTRS pending}} template yourself. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that David has been editing his boss' article quite a bit. He's been given the standard conflict of interest warning, and I've tagged the article for COI concerns. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Trying to put a logo on the Waukesha South High School article

I requested the school logo for the Waukesha South High School, in Waukesha Wisconsin. My request was to the principal of the school, and he did provide a copy of the image to me via email. I posted a question last night to Wikipedia about how to upload this, and I was told that the school "probably didn't have a logo" because it was not prominent on their web site. I attended that school, and I knew that they used their mascot (Blackie, a red Cardinal with a blackshirt on it) as the school's logo. The email I have from him is listed below. This should suffice that it is their logo, and he is granting my permission to post it on Wikipedia. Right? The picture was in a PDF from Rachel Geiger.

From: Geiger, Rachel [<email removed>] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:18 AM To: <email removed> Subject: FW: Waukesha South "logo"

Here's Blackie!

Rachel Geiger Principal's Secretary Waukesha South High School (P) 262-970-3705 (F) 262-970-3720

---

Original Message-----

From: Nowak, Mike Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:15 AM To: Geiger, Rachel Subject: FW: Waukesha South "logo"

Rachel, Can we forward a PDF of the Blackie logo?

Mike

---

Original Message-----

From: <email removed> <email removed> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:25 AM To: Nowak, Mike Subject: Waukesha South "logo"

I maintain the Waukesha South High School Band's web site for Mr Kammerer, so I get into how the internet works, and how social sites are referring to schools, and such. (I'm the one who does the Band's photography and video work, so you've seen me around)

Facebook is starting to make it easier to indicate which schools we all went to, and today I was told that I needed to update my Facebook account. The information was all optional, but it was easy to select that I attended Waukesha South, graduated in '76. Facebook pulls information about South from Wikipedia, which did not have too much information about South, compared to other schools. I started updating Wikipedia (yes, I'm into all of that too) but when it came time to providing a "logo" for South, I ran into problems. The Wiki people say we don't have a logo at South. I suggested our Blackie logo was the School logo, but because it's not on the School's pages, they disagreed with me, and would not let me make that association.

I'm sure you have other things that need more attention, but if you wanted to ask around, or delegate the question to anyone, I'd be happy to help establish the logo, or a logo, and/or help with the web pages too.

John Hillmer, Class of Waukesha South '76 Parent of Kimberlie(Senior) and Melissa(Freshman) Hillmer's at South

JHillmer (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Unless the school (or district) explicitly releases the image under a free license, and provides evidence of same to m:OTRS, then the logo of the school needs to used under terms of fair use, and must comply with all aspects of WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

youtube

Hello! I added a youtube link in a page I edited. Found out Italianwiki does not permit it. What about Englishwiki? If necessary I'll take it out. Thank you. GreetingsQuiiiz (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

YouTube links are rarely reliable sources, and are often links to violations of copyright. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

wrong i thought this would work differently

Goodnight again. Sorry, but didn´t understand last sentence...Quiiiz (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

new help with Declaration of consent and Common free licenses

I am trying to include a photograph of a living person in a biographical article. The photographer who is the sole owner of the photo seems willing to give up all rights except (possibly) attribution. I have sent him the Declaration of consent form found at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. He now wants to know which of the Common free licenses at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses he should fill in. In fact, he said for me to fill in the appropriate license acronym myself and resend the form to him. Which acronym should I use? Do I also delete all the text beginning with "[choose at least one from this page", and ending with "UNLESS YOU FILL SOMETHING IN HERE ].", and just replace it all with the acronym. (And should the acronym be a link to a template like it is at Common free licenses.) Damn this stuff is complicated!--Foobarnix (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• It is complicated. Also, this is really a Commons question, and should be asked there. But, a good one to use is CC-BY-SA 3.0. That would allow for attribution, and the photographer retains copyrights, though anyone can use it for commercial and non-commercial purposes and create derivative works of it if they desire. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

copyright tags

Hello, I have uploaded an image that is free for use but it keeps telling me it has no copyright tag. Can you tell me what i am doing wrong? It's a picture on the Edinburgh Napier University page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amal1984 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The image in question is File:Sighthill-wiki.gif. Are you sure it's free to use? It looks like it was taken from conferenceguideuk.com, which says "© All Rights Reserved" at the bottom. —Bkell (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I thought he meant File:Craiglockhart.gif (and added a link above to it, then saw your linked file). Regardless, I think they're both copyright violations. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• You haven't provided any source for the image for one. It appears you took the image from this source. Everything's identical except the brightness has changed. Even the clouds are the same. You can't just take something you find on the Internet and upload it here. You don't have rights to that image. Edinburgh Napier University retains rights to the image. I've marked the image as a copyright violation. It should be deleted shortly. Please don't upload work that is not actually yours again, unless you fully intend on using it under terms of fair use and complying with all aspects of WP:NFCC in that use. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• I've tagged both images as copyright violations and speedy deletable under WP:CSD#F9. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Both images were pathetically small and GIFs to boot. I have advised the Amal1984 to go to geograph for usable alternatives. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 15:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• And now, the editor has attempted to upload the copyright violations to Commons. See here. It's been tagged for speedy deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User created montages and The Chronicles of Narnia

User:Walter Görlitz opposed the deletion of File:Narnia books.jpg, and has since claimed that we can revert back to the first version of that image that was uploaded. The image, at the time that it was deleted, was a user created montage of 7 covers in the Narnia series. This is of course discouraged by WP:NFC. Walter Görlitz continues to maintain that the first image that was uploaded, which was a photograph of the seven books together, constituted a reasonable image to use, and continues to maintain that we should be using that image. He has become insulting at the talk page of the article (Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia), calling me "confused" in one posting, and "delusional" in another. Further, he's added text to the infobox saying "no image is available of the entire collection because of copyright reasons", and including File:No image.png in place of the now deleted image [1]. I removed this verbiage because that is not the reason the image was deleted, and having such text in the infobox is inappropriate [2]. I was shortly reverted by him [3], after which I attempted to discuss the issue with him on his talk page User_talk:Walter_Görlitz#The_Chronicles_of_Narnia. However, he refuses to reverse the edit, and the article remains in that state. User:Walter Görlitz seems to feel that a user created photograph of a set of books somehow makes it more acceptable. More discussion at Talk:The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#File:Narnia_books.jpg. Some assistance, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Should images tagged with PD-font be recreated as SVG?

Recently I noticed that 128.107.239.233 added an {{SVG}} tag to the image description page for File:Softpedialogo.png. This image is tagged with {{PD-font}}, which says in part, "This does not apply to vector format images of fonts, such as SVG." So I removed the SVG tag, because we should not be requesting a non-free version of an image to replace a public-domain version. Later 128.107.239.233 restored it. I removed it a second time, but then thought better of it and decided I should ask whether my interpretation of the situation is correct.

As I understand it (see Patent and copyright protection of fonts#Copyright), the actual design of the glyphs in a font is uncopyrightable under United States law, but computer font files are copyrightable. This (I suppose) is the reason for saying that vector-format images of fonts are not automatically in the public domain. But perhaps I am carrying things a little too far—would an SVG version of the Softpedia logo be a "vector-format image of a font"? Maybe nine letters out of a typeface is not enough, so an SVG version of File:Softpedialogo.png would still fall under, say, {{PD-textlogo}}? Is the "vector format images of fonts" phrase meant to refer to things like File:FreeSerifDemonstration.svg, in which a substantial portion of the typeface is presented? (And where is the dividing line—why is File:ArialMTsp.svg okay, even though Arial is a proprietary typeface?) —Bkell (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

deleted image - what to do?

I uploaded an image I was given by Prof. ALbery Goldbeter, of my father, that he took:

File:Fromalbertjustdad2.PNG

Lee Segel

---

This file may be deleted after Monday, January 10, 2011.

What exactly do I have to do to use the image in my article? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Danielse) I stated in the comments upon uploading that Prof. Goldbeter explicitly gave me permission to use the image; as he said in his email:

Dear Daniel,

I was glad to receive your message. It is a great idea to write a piece about Lee for Wikipedia. Just a few days ago I wrote a brief account of my journey in mathematical biology for the SMB newsletter, at the request of Michael Mackey. In it I wrote about Lee, how I felt close to him, and how much I miss him.

The picture Leah is mentioning (I am happy she likes it so much) was indeed used for the special issue of the Bulletin of Mathematical Biology that she edited with Philip Maini. Here is the link to their editorial and to the picture which I provided at the time:

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=j00j107q55655463&size=largest

Of course I would be happy if you could use this picture, which I took (perhaps in 1997) in front of the building of Applied Math at WIS. Can you extract the picture from the above link? If not, I would have to find a paper copy (it was before the time of numerical images), and this might take some time and effort because I do not remember where I put the picture which I had sent to Philip Maini, when he returned it to me...

...

Let me know if the picture from the above mentioned web site is usable for you,; or whether I should try to locate the paper version, or even the original.

With best regards, to you and the whole Segel family,

Albert

> Dear Albert, > As you can see from what I have written I am looking for a public-domain picture of > Dad. > How are you? What are the kids up to? All I can remember is your "Israeli" oldest girl. > Yrs., > Daniel Segel > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Leah Keshet <email removed> > Date: 2010/12/14 > Subject: Re: pic of dad > To: daniel segel & ruti feuchtwanger <email removed> > > > > Hi Daniel, > > WOnderful idea. > > The BEST picture of your dad that I have EVER seen was taken > by Albert Goldbeter. <email removed> > In fact I believe this was the picture I used in the > special issue of BMB. > > I bet he'd be happy to get this to you. > > I have a nice picture that I took of your dad hiking, > (in a group with about 4-8 other folks) > but it is not exactly a "formal" picture. I'm planning > to use it in the frontmatter of the book that he > started and that I polished up. > > I have it at home .. I am away at the moment in Philly. > > Please remind me in about 1 week if youd like me to > send you a copy. > > Best, > leah > > > On Sun, 12 Dec 2010, daniel segel & ruti feuchtwanger wrote: > > Hello Leah, > I am working on a Wikipedia article on Dad - I fgiure that's legitmate if > done right. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Danielse > I wanted to put in a picture of him, but Wikipedia is very strict on rights > - do you have something, > preferably official looking, that you took yourself? > Thank you, hope you and Shuka are well, > Daniel Segel >

--

Albert Goldbeter Faculté des Sciences Université Libre de Bruxelles Campus Plaine, CP 231 B-1050 Brussels, Belgium

Phone: +32-2-650 5772 Fax: +32-2-650 5767 e-mail: <email removed> http://www.ulb.ac.be/sciences/utc/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielse (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 January 2011

Surely you must have a photo of your father which you took yourself. The simplest way to have a photo of him for Wikipedia would be for you to upload your photo to Commons, tagging it with a free license tag like {{CC-BY-3.0}}. If you want the Goldbeter photo, there is a little more to it: He needs to send an email to OTRS, licensing the photo under a free license; see WP:COPYREQ for how to request that from him. —teb728 t c 11:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

File: Susanna Roxman in London.jpg

Hi,

It has been questioned whether Wikipedia can use a picture I have added to the article "Susanna Roxman". The picture is File: Susanna Roxman in London.jpg. The picture is uncopyrighted. The photographer has waived his copyright, for this particular purpose and for ever. It has been suggested that I may need a copyright tag. Please let me know how I can obtain one.

Also, I do hope the picture won't be removed. It took me literally hours to figure out how to add it at all. Also, it makes the page look much nicer and more professional.

Best wishes,

smilesofasummernight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilesofasummernight (talk • contribs) 14:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

PS I have just seen, from a previous discussion on the same topic/picture, that a copyright licence was, in fact, obtained on 28 October 2010. smilesofasummernight Smilesofasummernight (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• If this is your own work, you don't need to obtain a "copyright license" from another source. It may be encumbered with personality rights, but the copyrights to it are all yours, to do with as you see fit. If this is the case, please select a license to release the image under. Please see Wikipedia:Image_licenses#For_image_creators for direction. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to the fine people who provide assistance here, I find that the response to Smilesofasummernight is not clear at all. I myself followed the links suggested and still have no idea exactly how to use the codes provided and/or suggested. The page after page of instructions are not fun to pore through at all. Oh, well, Smilesofasummernight, be of good cheer: You are not alone in your confusion; just take a deep breath and have at it!. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you find the instructions to this to be less than clear. Wikipedia is always improving. I do note that copyright and licensing issues aren't simple. But, if there's a way to simplify things, then I'm all for the instructions being updated. The user uploaded the work, and apparently found the (what I think are) very thorough instructions unhelpful. So, I pointed to another set of instructions. If you can improve them, please do. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Making it simple, to achieve the waiver of all rights to your own picture, you add the {{PD-self}} template to the image description page. There are more complications if it is not your picture or it was published somewhere else first, but this is the simplest case. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

File:SF Transamerica full CA.jpg

A photo of the Transamerica Pyramid does violate copyright, but does violate trademark rules. As the building is integral to the Transamerica trademark, it is protected by trademark rules. Transamerica itself has this page about the building expressing its trademark rights.

The Transamerica building is a common example of a place where architecture does not fall under rules of the public domain. DavidDouthitt  (Talk) 18:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Something can be ineligible for copyright and still be trademarked. Their building is a strong identifier for them, but images of that building can not be copyrighted. Such images might be subject to trademark regulations depending on how and where they are used, but they are able to be free licensed, regardless of what Transamerica wants. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Arnold Weiss Photo

I am trying to obtain a photo of Arnold Weiss for his wikipedia page Arnold Weiss. I have talked to "TheCavalry" on #wikipedia-en channel on Freenode and he says it's in the public domain since the guy is deceased and if it's taken by the US Military (which I am unsure about), it still can be used on Wikipedia. The link to the photo is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/world/02weiss.html?_r=2&hpw

I do not know when, where or by who the picture is taken. Any feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone going answer my question/query? It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If we don't know who took the photo, or when it was published and where, then we cannot use it here as these will be undertainty if it is free. If someone can show it was taken by US military then PD claim is jsutified, so persue this option. Else you can claim a fair use since he is no longer living. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Foreign photographs published by the US Navy

Hi, all. I need some help identifying the copyright status of a photo at the US Navy website (www.navy.mil). Now, I know that photographs taken by USN personnel while on duty and published are released into the public domain (per US copyright law and {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}). However, what about images produced by foreign personnel then published by the US Navy (online or otherwise)? The image I have in mind is http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=88829, (reference number 100710-O-XXXXX-127.jpg if the link doesn't work) which is credited as "(Australian Defense Forces photo/Released)", as opposed to the "(U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Jason Swink/Released)" of http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=88360.

This question was originally asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Foreign photos at Navy.mil...copyright status?, where the view is that the image is most likely still under Australian copyright, but its been suggested that I ask here as well to make sure. Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 11:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Several US government websites display images provided to them by non-US government sources that may be under copyright. Clearly this image is attributed to the Australian Defense Forces so Australian copyright applies and US government public domain work does not apply. Australian government works are copyright for 50-years per commons:COM:L#Australia. The word "released" does not confer any indication of copyright status. In this case, without any indication to the contrary, it simply means the image was provided to the US Navy for their use. ww2censor (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting a license to upload images of screenshots from movie clips on Youtube to Wikipedia articles.

I have a pic of a screenshot from a video clip from a movie on Youtube I want to add to a Wikipedia article. I highlighted part of the pic to verify something for a Wikipedia article. What type of license do I need to upload it to a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavericker (talk • contribs) 11:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the copyright/licensing status of the YouTube clip of which your screenshot is a derivative work. (Since you say it is a “video clip from a movie,” I wouldn’t be surprised if the clip was itself a copyright violation.) But then it probably doesn’t matter because Wikipedia doesn’t publish original sources; that isn’t how we verify things on Wikipedia. Instead verification is based on references to reliable published sources. —teb728 t c 11:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust images

I have reverted several attempts to delete Holocaust images from articles, the latest ones being from the Auschwitz article. They appear to be orphan images from the War, and the people involved are long dead. Some have been taken from dead German soldiers belongings for example. They represent a critical part of the history and development of the Holocaust, and thus of very great historical importance. Since most if not all of the participants have long gone, they should surely be treated as copyright free and available for general use. I simply copied them from existing articles, so why is one editor attempting to block their wider usage? Peterlewis (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because the subjects are "long gone" does not make the images necessarily free. For example, in the US, if the photographer is known, the copyright on the work is 70 years after the photographer's death; so its unlikely a photo taken in 1940 has fallen into the public domain. Such images must meet WP:NFCC requirements for non-free content which includes minimal use and significant context to the reader. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Also note there is a technical requirement that when a non-free image is used on a page, it must have a valid rationale for each use, with the rationale specifically naming the page in question. The images that were removed appear to fail this. While this will not necessarily make the images 100% appropriate to use (as rationales can be challenged in efforts to maintain minimal non-free content), it will prevent their automatic removal from pages. See WP:RAT for how to write such things. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

My rational for their inclusion is quite clear: they illustrate key individuals in Holocaust history or events of the Holocaust. The images removed do not therefore fail the test of relevance. Their use is of very great importrance in showing how the Holocaust grew, and if we are to prevent further Holcuasts, it is vital that they be included. Peterlewis (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not going make any judgments on why you think the images are vital, but they are very likely still copyrighted (their licenses say they are) and thus we to follow non-free content policy and need you to include that rationale on the image page. That is, if you are talking about the images removed in this diff [4], and, for example, a specific image File:Glucks.jpg, you can see there's two rationales on that image's page, but neither of them are for the article Auschwitz concentration camp. For each image that is being removed, you need to create a new rationale on the image page that justifies the use on this article. This will prevent the images from being automatically removed under WP:NFCC#10c. This is required - we don't care exactly what that rationale is to prevent future automatic removals, just that the rationale for each use is at least present.

My caution to you, however, is that a poor rationale can be challenged. Rationales are meant to show why we should allow the use of non-free content, and if you don't justify this well, someone can determine the image use inappropriate and remove it manually. Historically, I've found the type of approach you've stated to be insufficient, but others may find it ok. The stronger case you can make in the rationale as to why to keep the image on the page, the better off you are. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Image File:Acoustic-Nights-1-poster.jpg

I'm sorry but I truly don't understand how an image (File:Acoustic-Nights-1-poster.jpg) which is representative of the event and series of events described in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_Nights_Montreal , an image which comes from the website of that series of events (and which, as webmaster and pricipal contributor to the content I have built and maintain regularly) can be considered unrelated to the article and orphaned. Well, it surely became orphaned as a file when its inclusion on the wiki page was deleted, again something I simply do not understand the reasoning behind.

Maybe it's something to do with allowed use of the image as I defined it when I uploaded it. I don't see what that information is now since it's been deleted, but my concern is to avoid anybody defacing that image, using it for any nefarious purpose. So I most certainly don't undersand those settings or indeed the very place to which I was suppsoed to uplaod the image so that it may be used in the article. Why is it so complicated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webado (talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see the above section about the Holocust images - your poster image is lacking a rationale to be used on that article and one needs to be added. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The image information from the edit summary has been added to display properly but the source webpage (that I added) clearly shows the content to be non-free as evidenced by the copyright notice at the bottom of the page. So because it is copyright image it must have a non-free copyright tag as well as a non-free rationale, but, if you are the copyright holder we need to know what copyright you are releasing it under and to do that you must comply with the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION or have the copyright holder to it. Either way, if you don't anything the poster will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Loango article map + flag

Hello, could anyone instruct me on precisely how to determine the copyright status of the images in the Kingdom of Loango article? I provided links to the authors when I uploaded them, and the Wikipedia article about determining copyright status is very, very confusing.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook

User:Vinie007 has uploaded a number of footballer images (example File:Mario Morina.jpg, File:Rezart Dabulla.jpg) from facebook as publicity photographs with no terms. As living people I am sure they all fail NFCC#1 just wanted to check, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Even free media is not properly tagged in this geographical region for lack of proper copyright-legislation, thus it is hard to identify them. With this picture being made public by the Footballers, no copyright restriction is implied. If this manner will be forbidden, hardely no picture could be uploaded. Not many people in Albania has the luxory of a photo-camara that is good enough for picturing sport events --Vinie007 16:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• - I removed four or five of the non free pics that Vinnie had added to the infoboxes of living people as they are footballers and clearly a commons comparable pic could be found but he has replaced them. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Albanian law provides for a copyright term of 70 years pma per commons:COM:L#Albania so Vinie007's claim that there is a lack of copyright legislation is inaccurate and if people don't tag free media properly is unfortunately a problem. You will need to research each image fully to find out its copyright status. These images are copyright to someone unless it can be proven, with verifiable evidence, they are freely licenced, besides which we don't accept fair-use images of living people because they fail WP:NFCC#1. Whether few people in Albania have cameras to take such images or not is an irrelevant argument. Someone can attend football matches and take image of these footballers while they are still alive. ww2censor (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

yeah sure. Than not, if you just can't stand 4 pictures of Albanian fotballers ok. Won't upload any more, thanks a lot Off2riorob and ww2censor --Vinie007 19:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We are very happy to have freely licenced images of Albanian footballers uploaded but not ones whose copyright is unclear or clearly unfree. ww2censor (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah for sure --Vinie007 15:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

CSD G7 for image in use?

I have a question about image policy. While not technically a copyright question, I assume the right people to ask are the image policy experts, so I think I'm in the right place.

We have a CSD rationale, CSD G7, which is often used by an editor either starting an article and deciding to abandon it, or working on material in user space, and no longer needing it. I've seen it used less often with images, for example, an editor trying to use a non-free image, and after realizing the licensing problem, decides it would be better to delete the image. I don't recall, before today, seeing the request used for an image that is used in an article.

File:MonopulseDoppler.jpg is used in Radar engineering details. In short, I would think we should decline the request to delete. I don't believe we are ever required to honor an CSD G7, once an editor creates material in WP, it becomes the property of WP, and we allow the CSD G7 for housekeeping reasons. That wouldn't seem appropriate in the case of an image in use. Am I missing something?--SPhilbrickT 17:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Matt LeBlanc

Matt LeBlanc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor uploaded the above image today. As far as I can tell, the image does not yet have licensing information and is being investigated. The same editor added the image to the LeBlanc article. I reverted it with an explanation in the edit summary about the image's problems. He reverted back. What now?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The page claims that OTRS is coming, so if it proven, the page can stay, otherwise the picture will be deleted as a copyvio. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone else removed the picture and so far the editor/uploader hasn't done anything. But if I understand you properly, the proper procedure is to allow the picture, even without licensing information, while the copyright is being researched? Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the picture out until it's been confirmed as legal? Also, if you look at the "source" of the picture, I think it said it was zimbio.com. However, when I looked at that website, it was hard to figure out whether the picture in fact came from there or whether they owned the copyright to the picture, but it made me believe there was less likelihood that the copyright was owned by the uploader. Finally, it now looks like the picture has been deleted, but I can't find the history of the deletion on Wikipedia or on Commons. Sigh, nothing is easy.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If the OTRS is confirmed then the picture will be undeleted, or reloaded onto commons. It will be upto the emailler to notice and add the picture to the article, but if it is deleted, as for now it is no use in the article! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture

File:http://www.robertmccammon.com/images/bl_20_pb.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradwing52 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What about http://www.robertmccammon.com/images/bl_20_pb.jpg ? —teb728 t c 01:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a thumbnail of the cover to File:Boy's Life novel cover.jpg and added it to the infobox of Boy's Life (novel) —teb728 t c 02:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

respected sir,

        i want to say that..just upload the logo of  IIIT -hyderabad,...infact it is present.
       we people really feel dificulty to locate it on facebook ,or other social networking sites.realated with wikipedia.

 thank you...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.84.11 (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 

Screen-shot of free software

Under which license (or with which tags) do I upload a screen-shot from a free software?