Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/January

How can I request that an image be released into the public domain?

I am interested in adding an image of the filmmaker and actor Cory Edwards to his Wikipedia page and to the article Hoodwinked! as well. Although I have been unable to locate any free images of him, he has several images of himself on his official website [1] and I have corresponded with him occasionally in the past. He always responds to questions and comments and I believe that there is a good chance he would release an image of himself into the public domain if asked. My knowledge of copyright law is very limited though and I have never understood how to work with images on Wikipedia. Is it possible that someone could help me out with this? I would be willing to e-mail him myself, but would need an explanation of what to ask him (For example, is there a specific form that he would have to fill out?). Or if anyone actually has the time to e-mail him themself that could work too. His address is Cory@futureboyfilms.com. I would certainly appreciate any help that could be given. Thanks. --Jpcase (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for full detailed instructions. NtheP (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, I've always struggled in this area, so let me make sure I am clear about what I need to do. In the e-mail, I should request that he grant permission for the image to be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and I should explain what that license is. If I understand correctly, the license means that he must allow others the right to use, share, and copy the image (even for commercial purposes) both on and off of Wikipedia, as long as the image and all reproductions of the image are attributed to him. Is this correct? Is there anything else I need mention in the e-mail? (Perhaps I should also provide a link to Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License so that he can read the agreement in detail) --Jpcase (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeds and yes. NtheP (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again. Should I include the image that I want to use as an attachment in the e-mail, provide a link to the url where I found it, or identify it by some other means? --Jpcase (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that in most cases the copyright to a picture is owned by the photographer and not the subject. Most subjects don't know this because they paid for the picture to be taken, etc. None-the-less the photographer typically retains the rights to it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

FOP question

Have 2 photos of Jackie Gleason's round home in Peekskill, NY and would upload them if there are no FOP issues. The home was completed in 1959 and went on the market in 1963, when Gleason decided to move to Miami Beach. The photos were taken by the realtor who handled the sale back then. There's an exterior photo and one of the home's study, where I don't see anything like art work. Are both, one or neither OK? Thanks, We hope (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the home itself, its the photographer's copyright that we would have to respect, first. It does not appear these are in the PD or license in CC-BY, so they would not be free. Now, as to whether we can use them, in the US we have freedom of panorama for buildings, so as long as the building can be photographed from a public location, the non-free photo is not permissible. The same does not extend to the study, but you would have to demonstrate a need for comprehension within the article to use that photo per WP:NFCC#8, which I don't think is immediately possible, so it is unlikely usable. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Had only planned on using them if they could be considered PD. Thanks, We hope (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Bravo TV.svg

Is this logo qualified for copyrights? The bubble talk shape looks too simple. --George Ho (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it likely fails originality and could be considered free. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Fame-sountrack.jpg

Just for quick review, is this image eligible for copyright? --George Ho (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Can anybody pay attention to this image? --George Ho (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Flickr photo that changed license

What should be done with commons:File:Wallowa Mountains.jpg? It appears that at the time of upload, the Flickr photo was licensed under CC-BY-2.0, which the FlickreviewR bot verified, but now it's licensed "all rights reserved" with a note about Getty Images. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As it's a Commons file this needs to be raised at the Commons help desk. NtheP (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

CC licences are not revocable, so the verified CC-BY licence is still valid at Commons. January (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed but there still needs to be action taken at Commons to indicate that there was a CC licence when it was uploaded at Commons. NtheP (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added this to the Commons description page. January (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Some Flickr users who initially release their images under a free licence later change it to a more restrictive non-free licence. When the FlickreviewR bot checks, it looks for the free licence and verifies it but due to the licence having been changed it is best to add the Flickr-change-of-license template to such images. ww2censor (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think January's point needs elaborating slightly. If the copyright holder releases it then that is irrevocable. However, where we subsequently discover that the uploader to Flickr was not the copyright holder, then we should delete. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, flickrwashing is a problem.--ukexpat (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm glad it doesn't have to be deleted. Thanks for figuring this out. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Skyfall promotinal poster.jpg

This poster is flagged as "fair use". The image is 2000 x 1500 pixels. That seems rather large for "fair use". Jim1138 (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone tagged it {{non-free reduce}} which is completely appropriate. That's far too large. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is not even used in the article so is orphaned and I have tagged for deletion as such. There is already a similar non-free image in the article. ww2censor (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible violation of copyright

I found this picture is a replica of a graph published in Williams et al. 1989 and modified in Reuther 2012

Jigger D (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That file is not in the English Wikipedia, but in the Commons. You will need to bring it to their attention. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on the above, I have tagged the Commons image as a possible copyvio.--ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

...and it has been deleted accordingly.--ukexpat (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Are video interviews a RS?

If there is a televised interview posted on Youtube, and there is no confirmation that the video is PD, can someone still take a quote or information from the interview and add it to an article about the person interviewed? If so, can they link the footnote to the YouTube video? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Video interviews performed by reliable sources are appropriate, but if the YouTube video is posted by someone else who is not the copyright owner of the original work, we can't link to it, and one should make sure that the interview hasn't been altered. But that said, you can cite the appropriate show, episode, and/or air date where the video interview was first broadcasted, you just can't link to it. That's enough information that the verifyability threshold can be met. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes sense, up to a point. But can't that also lead to issues of proof, if the only source is the televised interview? A case in point is this diff. Without the link to the possibly copyvio interview, how is one to confirm accuracy of the interpretation? Couldn't someone just remove the material as lacking a source, since there's no realistic way to prove statements? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my last sentence, that's already happened: See comment, "There was absolutely nothing wrong with the information, but if you can't find a WP:RELIABLE source to back it up, then please don't include it. - SchroCat". So if it's indeed a reliable source, can someone else chime in there? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We never require a link to a source, just that we provide enough information for a user to locate the source themselves. So if you cite a broadcasted television interview, it is not our responsibility to assure the reader can easily get a copy of that, just that they can locate it if needed (per WP:V). --MASEM (t) 06:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Any contentious or disputed desired addition requires a quality source - look at this youtube video I uploaded is not a quality source - Youreallycan 07:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

For a lot of articles (and university papers to boot), all you need to do is cite the show, broadcaster and airing date. However, if the copyright holder is the uploader (or find a transscript from the broadcaster), you can link to it. It should be fine, but be prepared to find other sources. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)]]} 08:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

@User:Zscout370 - imo your living in the wikipedia past when you claim , - "all you need to do is cite the show, broadcaster and airing date" - if you want to do this in regards to any contentious or disputed desired addition , go for it , but give me as diff so I can oppose it - Youreallycan 09:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In this particular case, as I've pointed out on the article talk page this morning, elements of the interview have been used in at least three of the main biographies. Two of these are available on Google Books and there may well be other available sources of reliable info as I didn't go as far as news or general internet searches. These can be happily used and cited without anyone questioning the source or without any copyright violation. - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - Here is a link to your talkpage comment but please add diffs so as users can investigate your claims - Youreallycan 14:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Can I use this image on Wikipedia?

I sent the following e-mail in the hopes of acquiring permission to use a copyrighted image on Wikipedia.

Dear Mr. Edwards,

Thank you again for answering my questions as I worked on the Wikipedia article for Hoodwinked. I was hoping to add an image of you to the page and to your own Wikipedia article as well, but have been unable to locate any that are in the public domain. Do you hold the copyright on the images contained on your website? If so, I was wondering whether you would be willing to grant permission for one of them to be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License. This license will allow others to use, share, and copy (including for commercial purposes) the image both on and off of Wikipedia as long as it is still attributed to you. You can read the entirety of the license at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

The image that I am interested in using is ce_gray_06 (second row, second column at http://coryedwards.com/?page_id=5)

I understand if this is something that you are unable to do, but if you are willing, please reply stating that you grant permission for the image to be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License.

Thanks

His response was as follows.

Yes, I own all the images you see on the gallery page of my website, CoryEdwards.com. You may use anything you see there -- they are posted there for exactly that purpose.

Is this enough or did he have to specifically state that the image could be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License? --Jpcase (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I posted this question at Wikimedia as well and have recieved a response. --Jpcase (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you forward the email through the OTRS procedure and ask for specific permission there with the evidence you present when opening the request. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Irish Newspapers

Please forgive me if this has been discussed before. It is not 1 April, though I may be being taken in by a well staged hoax. Please read http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2012/12/30/2012-the-year-irish-newspapers-tried-to-destroy-the-web/ and consider how it may affect Wikipedia, if at all. If this is the wrong forum please move this message to the right forum. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If Irish law was changed to make deep-linking unlawful or subject to licensing then it would have an impact. As it stands from reading that blog entry this was only a proposal by the Irish newspaper industry. One would hope that legislators would see that such a proposal is complete nonsense and would reject it.--ukexpat (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ireland may well mirror the UK in working in case law and precedent. However much we think this is foolishness, it behoves us to be aware of it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this 1966 image PD?

This 1966 image of British actor Peter Sellers seems to be without a copyright, front and back, and came from the Chicago Sun-Times press office. Would it be PD? I've had images of British actors removed even when they lacked a visible copyright, so I'm just wondering. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Threshold of originality question

I accept that some images, typically logos, do not pass the Threshold of originality, and are therefore not eligible for copyright protection.

I've assumed that this means another person is allowed to recreate the image, not that another person can take an image created by another person. I reviewed the linked article, as well as Commons:Threshold_of_originality, and do not see a clear discussion of the distinction.

The issue arises because it is claimed that the AIG Logo File:Logo used by AIG in 2012.jpg is not sufficiently original, and therefore not subject to copyright.

This clearly means that anyone can come along and make their own version. Does it mean that one can find a version on a website and take it for use on Wikipedia? As has been done here: File:AIG 2012 logo.png --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither AIG nor others may understand copyright of the US. The rectangle is too simple, and the rectangle consists of letters. Therefore, it is not eligible for copyright, but trademarks may apply. I wonder if the UK finds it creative enough for copyright. --George Ho (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood the question. The question is not whether it passes the threshold of originality. I assume it does not.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wait. Creating own version and then identifying it as AIG may (or may not) violate trademark law of the United States, regardless of and independent from copyright. That's all I can say. --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. The logo is not copyrightable so anyone take it and make other versions of it. But as it is also registered trademark, you cannot take one of those new versions and pass it off as the logo of the company or as one of its trademarks, or use it as your own trademark - that would be trademark infringement.--ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This raises an additional point I hadn't considered. Can an editor, creating an image which doesn't pass the threshold of originality, and is therefore not a violation of copyright, nonetheless violate trademark law? IANAL, but I would guess that this would be true only if you were trying to pass off a faux-product as if it were the real thing. For example, The SKYY vodka label doesn't meet the standard to be subject to copyright, so you are free to use a image creation tool to create a virtually identical label. However, if you slapped it on your own product, and tried to sell it, you would be guilty of trademark infringement.

I also assume that if I created an AIG logo, and slapped it on my insurance policy, I would be guilty of trademark violation (inter alia). But if I create an AIG logo, and use it on an article, such as in Wikipedia, or in another website, and identity it as the AIG logo, does that constitute trademark infringement? I would think not.

That said, no one has yet addressed my original question: does the fact that an editor is allowed to create such an image mean it is OK to take the creation of someone else? I don't know whether this violates a law, but I don't think we should allow it. I do note it is attributed, and that may make it OK, but I still don't like it. My question is whether my personal dislike is, or should be, policy. If someone wants to create an SVG or PNG, create one, don't look around and take one. (As distinct from PD images, which can't reasonably be re-created in image software, and being PD can be used.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Because the logo itself is not original enough to warrant copyright protection, you can simply take their logo file and upload it here. —howcheng {chat} 18:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Non of those versions exhibit enough originality to be protected by copyright. Kaldari (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

00:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC) uploading an image to Wikipedia

Hi,

I am trying to upload an image to comedian Gary Owen's wiki page. I am having trouble getting the image up, when using the upload image form. If anyone can assist me with directions it would be greatly appreciated.

The photographer has given us written permission to use the image and we have all of the necessary info necessary to cite the photographer, etc.

00:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLA1645 (talk • contribs)

I would suggest you forward the evidence through the OTRS procedure and ask for specific permission there with the evidence you present when opening the request. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I am completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia - have never edited any pages on it. Where do I go to find OTRS? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLA1645 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The procedure is explained at WP:IOWN.--ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

PD-status of File:Dobroslav_Jevđević_in_ceremonial_uniform.jpg and File:Jevđević_with_Italians.jpg ?

I could use some help with the copyright of these 2 files. Both are of Croatian origin (from the now-defunct WW II puppet state "Independent State of Croatia"), copied from the Serbo-Croatian Wiki with little available publisher and author info. The uploader made a good effort to clarify as much information as possible, but i am still unclear, if we could use those files under some kind of PD to avoid fair-usage. A Croatian (from current Croatia that is) anonymous file before 1949 would be PD-croatia and PD-US seems also likely (published without notice outside US before 1978). However i have no idea, how to deal with the fact, that the images were taken in a now non-existant state and if the current Croatia is considered a legal successor of this "puppet state" (it had some international recognition mostly from Axis and some neutral powers, but no broad world-wide acceptance).

1. Could someone clarify, how the copyright of such extinct and/or not recognized states works? Or link to some further information on this topic (i searched without much success)?
2. Is there a chance to get those files on a clear PD-status? Under which conditions?

(the second file may also be of Italian origin and would then be PD-italy, but it's probably better to cover the possible Croatian origin aswell to be safe). Thanks for any advice. GermanJoe (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

picture I uploaded was taken down

Hello, Thanks. A picture I uploaded was taken down, "due to copyright issues", although there are none; the taker of the photo has released all rights. What category should be chosen when a photographer was paid for a picture which is now owned by the person trying to upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulvernet (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This photo was taken down. There are no copyright issues. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulvernet (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A photographer does not sell her or his copyright when selling a physical photograph, computer file, etc. unless the copyright was explicitly included. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

the image was deleted from Commons because you did not add a licence. So let's start from the other end of the process, where did you get the photo from and why do you think all the rights have been released? NtheP (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Brandy Norwood R&B singer.jpg

Is this image a copyright violation? I have a strong feeling that it is lol. — Oz 07:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think so Tineye found this http://blog.saynow.com/2009/03/ with http://blog.saynow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/tyreseandbrandy.jpg from which this is cropped. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Could this file qualify for fair use?

I recently transferred File:William_bankhead.jpg to commons without fully checking if it was eligible. I believe this image to be copyrighted by the author's estate and will request that it is deleted there. My question is: could this image qualify for fair use on wikipedia? I've read the policy but I'm still somewhat unfamiliar and don't know what kind of things qualify. I'd prefer to upload the image again at wikipedia instead of just deleting it at commons --Moogsi (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, as the image is replaceable by several other free ones. So it fails one criterion at least. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

1925 work by defunct organization

I have a 1925 billiards rules and records book, with champion player photos, published by the New York State Billiards Association. It misses the normal US copyright cut-off by a couple of years. However, the organization is long defunct, and I can in fact find no evidence at all that it lasted past 1925. The copy I have starts at the index (missing original cover, frontispiece, indicia), so it is unknown if it ever bore a copyright notice at all (which I believe would have been required for this item to have ever been subject to copyright; it long predates the concept of automatic copyright at moment of creation). It is a PDF, which has been freely distributed online by a public figure in billiards instruction and history, with no known legal issues. What's the verdict on something like that? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Most US publications from this era are in the public domain because nobody bothered to renew the copyright — published with notice but non-renewed means no more protection today than published without copyright notice. This is particularly likely in the case of something published by an organisation that died soon after the something was published. I don't remember where to find copyright renewal databases (hopefully someone else will come along with a link), but a check of the relevant databases for whichever year is appropriate will tell you whether the copyright were renewed. One other thing — what's your title? Perhaps you could look online for other copies with a title page. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

UPenn Copyright Catalog databases from 1891 to 1978. For 1925, check books for 1952 and 1953, as some were renewed early. Good Luck! We hope (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't find promotional photo option anymore

I am trying to add more files like this one:

But when I try to upload a file, I can't find this option:

"This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit."

Please advise. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabalong (talk • contribs) 23:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where that option disppeared to in the upload wizard form, but the best approach is to upload it under the "Other" classification, filling out everything else, and then when the file page is completed, edit that and replace the license tag with {{Non-free promotional}}, which is what you want. --MASEM (t) 03:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

SpectraCalc results

I am trying to upload a file created by me with gas cell simulator. Permission to show it on Wikipedia has been confirmed by e-mail (copy below). I cannot find a way to upload my file with the upload wizard, given these copyright conditions.

Petergans (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your inquiry. We're happy to have SpectralCalc results reproduced in published works, including Wikipedia. Whenever displaying spectra or other data derived from the SpectralCalc website, we request that you provide a reference to the SpectralCalc.com website, preferably in the form of a hyperlink.

If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to let us know.

Best regards, -- Martin McHugh GATS Inc

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 4:34 PM, P.Gans wrote:

Please let me know the copyright position with respect to displaying synthetic spectra in Wikipedia

we would actually like to have the permission to make derivatives, so that if there is an image uploaded here it can be changed or added to a larger work. I have remove phone numbers and email addresses. Normally a person running the software would get a copyright on the output, but it does of course depend on what the software adds into the image. It may in fact have no creative contribution and therefore not be eligible for copyright. In the first instance if you ran the software with your input you have some copyright claim to the results, so you can release this as CC-BY-SA-3.0 yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Sir William Duthie Morgan.jpg

Should it be fair use or it's PD as UK government work and so can be uploaded to Commons? Ain92 (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged it as {{PD-UKGov}} and {{move to commons}} as it is a War Office image. ww2censor (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Moved to Commons. Ain92 (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Flickr license doesn't match description?

I would like to use this image (or a similar image from that photographer) from Flickr in an article, however I'm not too sure what license it has. The 'official' Flickr licene is "All Rights Reserved" - meaning I can't upload this by the guidelines at Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr - but the photographer states in the description "Please credit me if you use any of these images". What can/should I do to verify what license this image is under? Eladkse (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I would contact the photographer, point out the apparent discrepancy and ask for clarification.--ukexpat (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Artistic creativity in modern icon painting?

Just to be on the safe side, I'd like to hear other people's opinions in this case. Somebody uploaded a photograph of a modern Greek Orthodox religious icon, a painting of the Virgin Mary of the "Panagia gorgoypikoos" type. He has declared this as his own photographic work (and I do not doubt the photograph as such is indeed his.) The painting is undoubtedly a modern work (you can see the painter's signature and date in the bottom left corner). However, like most modern icons, it very closely reproduces a specific traditional type, which is conventionalized down to details such as the gesture of the fingers, the colour and shape of the garment, the facial type and so on (compare the first ten or so tokens here: [2]). Yet, it is not a slavish mechanical reproduction of any one of these, but an independently executed painting.

Question: is the level of artistic creativity in executing such a painting sufficient to attract copyright, and would we therefore have to treat the photograph as a non-free derivative? (I suspect yes.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. IMO, it's full of artistic changes, so much so that it almost looks like an illustration, not a painting. The faces alone have an air-brushed quality, and the clothing is very much in an illustration style. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh. I'd be shocked to hear if the holy fathers of the Daniilaion monastery on Mount Athos had secretly been introducing new-fangled airbrush techniques for making their icons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

But then, maybe, it's a miraculous icon from the future, since it's actually dated to "͵Βϟʹ", i.e. 2090, so it may have been executed with future technology. (Must be a misspelling for "͵ΒϚʹ", i.e. 2006.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. It's clearly an original work, even if in a rigidly-defined tradition (kinda like an old-school Harlequin Romance). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'll go ahead and F9 it then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

US Buffalo Soldiers Battle of Carrizal

File:US Buffalo Soldiers Battle of Carrizal.jpg
Summary
Description Buffalo Soldiers of the American 10th Cavalry Regiment who were taken prisoner during the Battle of Carrizal, Mexico in 1916.
Source http://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/comment/huachuca/images/86b.jpg
Date 00:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Author United States Army
Permission
(Reusing this file) See below. ...

However the image from a 1993 book and the image in question is at:
http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/comment/huachuca/HI1-22.htm
Huachuca Illustrated
A Magazine of the Fort Huachuca Museum
The Buffalo Soldiers at Fort Huachuca
The first of three issues
James P. Finley
Volume 1, 1993
http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/comment/huachuca/HI1-00index.htm

At the bottom of the page is:

Note about the photographs: Most of the photographs used in this issue are unretouched, historic prints. As such, they sometimes are not of the quality and resolution that would be expected today. However, in the interest of preserving both the flavor and authenticity of the era described, they are included without computer enhancement or alteration. Permission is granted to reproduce for educational or training purposes.

The copyright question is: Since the 1993 book graciously allows reproduction for educational or training purposes, should it not be cited properly as the source? Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If you copied the images from there you can mention it as part of the source, but it is clear this is not the original author. If it really is the US Army then the images will be public domain, and that should be stated, the books permission is irrelevant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That is pretty much what I thought and fits with WP:CITEHOW. I am not the person who uploaded the image, but I think I can fix the linking to show it properly and remove the BSR. While some pictures are attributed to a military person, many appear to be previously unpublished without the actual source given. Some images even though similar and taken by the same person are US military attributed in one image, but not the other. This leads me to believe it is from a historical collection such as the Fort Huachuca Museum. These images appear to be US military related and archived and sustained at a former military location such as a museum. And thus US Army images that are historical and should be in the public domain. Maybe convoluted, but courtesy to the source is always proper. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Extra-logo.jpg

Is this logo eligible for copyright? --George Ho (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, imo, although just a word, collection of letters it looks like an original creation work of art to me - Wiki, the foundations copyright position is a reflection of cautiousness and its of no added value to the foundation that it or its users attempt to assert no copyright on any disputable works - non free usage is fine, still usable - Youreallycan 08:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

While we err on the side of caution, IMHO this image clearly falls under the {{PD-textlogo}} category and does not pass the threshold of originality required for a US image though in other countries, such as the UK, it could be copyright. ww2censor (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This logo is under review. --George Ho (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Arlington National Cemetery headstones

Does anyone know if the headstones on the official site for Arlington National Cemetery can be used with the Template:PD-USGov on Commons? I've inquired through the website about who took the photos, but have not heard back. I'm assuming it was someone in the military as part of their duty, in which case Template:PD-USGov would be appropriate. Has anyone else dealt with this website before? – Maky ^« talk » 22:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Nonfree images in content categories

Do we permit nonfree images to appear in content categories? I'm pretty sure not, so I removed some just now (see my file namespace edits at 00:56 on 7 January 2013), but I'm not completely clear. I'd appreciate a link to a related policy, and if I went the wrong way, please feel free to use rollback on me. Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not know all the policies and guidelines, but if they are in a category, the category needs a __NOGALLERY__ tag in it. That way, the media is only linked and does not display.

Unless the category has been pre-determined as a non-free maintenance category (eg typically for deletion review), no we don't allow non-frees in such (But they can be categories, marked with the NOGALLERY tag as noted) --MASEM (t) 03:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Wikipedia:Categorization and WP:NFC do not explicitely rule out categorisation of non-free images. The only requirement is the __NOGALLERY__ tag, but I don't see any requirement that non-free images should not be added to content categories. De728631 (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Thomas Aquinas Dictionary.jpg

Is this book cover eligible for copyright? --George Ho (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would think so. The two sets of text are placed at a particular angle to each other and the red box is not just a simple rectangle, it has that flag off the left side. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No useful caselaw. It may just about qualify however so there is little to be gained by arguing that it doesn't.©Geni 14:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Google Earth street cam photos

Any help regarding two new uploaded photos to an article would be much appreciated. The photos are from Google Earth street cam and they are of a mountain & valley. One of the new photos has replaced a pervious pictures which was also originally from Google Earth Street cam when checked out but that had never been deleted? I'm confused. So am I right in understanding that no Google maps street cam pictures are allowed to be upload to Wikipedia in instants like this? Here are the two photos, File:Penmaen-Bach mountain from Dwygyfylchi road.jpg and File:Sychnant Pass over looking Dwygyfylchi.jpg. Thanks in advance for any help. Only Stone tools? (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You've already asked this question at my talk page and at Talk:Dwygyfylchi and it has been explained that the image you removed is not from Google Earth and is a freely licenced file unlike the two you have uploaded. To be allowed under non free use the pictures must not be capable of being replaced by a free image. Unless the geography has changed out of all recognition then it's not difficult to say that someone could (not necessarily has done so) take a freely licenced image from the same location of the same scene. Until and unless Google change their licencing policy, google street cam image are not permissible uploads. NtheP (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping it polite...not, manners cost nothing you know. If the photo of PenmaenBach is not from Google Earth then... well that was awfully nice of mother nature to recreate the exact same conditions (position/colours/shapes of clouds, the sheep in same position, etc...), lol don't think so. I think you’re going to have to admit you're wrong on this occasion. Maybe you should research the photo first. You managed to put me off Wikipedia for life with treatment received. Have a nice day & Good luck with the manners thing.Only Stone tools? (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It is really pretty simple. All Google maps and images are copyright and we cannot use them because they are replaceable with free ones. You have claimed we can use these images under our fair-use policy exception, which incidentally is much stricter then legal fair-use but the very first requirement is that the image is not replaceable. Sorry but your claim that: It's the best looking picture I could find as it is sunny day. All my own personal pictures are either when it's raining over overcast fails this test immediately and miserably as a reason to use a non-free image. Well if you are a photographer with patience you can make an image virtually the same as the one you found on Google. As an ex-photographer for more than 25 years I know and on occasions had to recreate images which entailed revisiting locations several times with substantial journeys and overnight stays or sitting around for hours waiting for the weather conditions to come good. And if you are so concerned about the position of the sheep you could bring some dummy sheep or use Photoshop which was not available when I was photographing. Let me reiterate, both these images can be replaced with similar quality free ones. BTW the links in the two image do not work. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Alberto Martinez.jpg

Although File:Alberto Martinez.jpg says that it is from the Military Times, which in turn credits the image to the Army, an identical image appears with a New York Times copyright notice here. Bwrs (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this should be discussed at Commons where the file is hosted. That aside, the NY Times uses a cropped version which is apparently a derivative of the PD Army photograph. So I'd say, File:Alberto Martinez.jpg, which is the original version, is correctly attributed and we don't need to worry about the NYT claims. De728631 (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

While the original may very well be an official Army photo, the EXIF data of the one we host (i.e., the one at Military Times) clearly states "(AP Photo/CBS6 WRGB Albany)". VernoWhitney (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright of character.

Hi in 2004 I wrote some fan fiction and created my own character, at the time I was told the then producer of that TV show was also on the same forum where I'd uploaded my story. In 2007, that producer introduced the very same character into the same family on the show. Name was different as was the characters background but everything else was the same.

Surely my character is my copyright and not theirs so they've infringed mine..?

The below is a link to that page & character though you will have to go half way down for it the date is evident at the top.

http://shewolf.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=fan&action=display&thread=7472 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonharvey (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't offer advice like that. You best seek your own legal advice elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

How to attribute an image under GNU License

I would like to alter and use a photograph in Wikimedia that's covered under the GNU License. This is the photograph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Institute_building,_Auburn.JPG#filehistory If I read the license correctly, I am allowed to alter it in any way and use it on a web page. Am I supposed to upload the altered version to the same page where the original version is located in Wikimedia? What else do I have to do? I'm confused as to what and how to do it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.148.235 (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You do not have to upload to the same place you got it from, but where you do upload it to you will have to link to the license and give the correct attribution. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

collages

Hello, I've created a collage of notable Zulu people that I would like to use on Zulu people. The collage uses various images already on Wikipedia, some are in the public domain [3][4][5][6], others are copyrhighted but free use [7][8]. Cropping and arrangement is by me. How should I declare the copyright upon uploading? Thanks. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You must provide a link to the original source image together with licence for each image used in the collage. That way we can check they are all properly licenced. You can also provide a link to the original non-wikipedia/wikimedia source if you like. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Rainbowwrasse (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Emaan Ahmed England

this wikipedia has no information about JESUS CHRIST LIFE STORY" so not very goood useful pice off text. "not useful at a time"

• Sure it does, read Life of Jesus in the New Testament and it links to many other articles. But do you have a copyright question? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright of Russian Government photographs

I would love to use the image on this page. It appears to be the work of the Russian Government (the museum is administered by the gov't). Can anyone find anything on the copyright status of works of the Russian government? Ryan Vesey 23:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

From Copyright law of the Russian Federation and looking online, the Russian Federation doesn't appear to treat itself any different from any other legal entity. Entities cannot hold copyright and therefore copyright belongs to the individual creator of the image although there is autmoatic transfer of ecomonic rights to the employer. So I suspect that it's non PD unless you can identify the individual photographer and get them to release the image. NtheP (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

non-copyright images from manufacturers

Where can I find free to use images from manufacturers like GM or Apple? do they have special press sites that offer these to reproduce? is there a website dedicated to collecting these images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidvail (talk • contribs) 19:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, most companies do not make public domain images of their products as a matter of course or policy. If you want an image of an Apple or GM product, you would need to take a photograph yourself and then agree to license it with a Wikipedia-compatible license or release it into the public domain. It is not "standard practice" to do so, and requires the express consent of the owner of the copyright to agree to those terms. In cases where the intent of the copyright owner is not known, the default assumption is they have reserved copyright. --Jayron32 19:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright claims in watermarks

Consider the following two files, and in particular the watermarks on them:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Evergreen%22_%283749508914%29.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unknown_hairy_creature_on_stump.jpg

Both claim to be licensed a Creative Commons license, but both have watermarks asserting them to be copyrighted. Furthermore, we have a notice encouraging editors to remove the watermark.

This seems wrong. Am I supposed to believe that the uploader is the copyright holder but does not have a non-watermarked copy? This really looks like it is an invitation to copyright abuse. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Good points. It could easily be abused. But I'm not sure I'd even call them true watermarks. Most watermarks are subtle, showing just enough detail to prevent copying, but not distracting from the photo. They're often hard to read. In both the above photos, however, the copyright is overprinted as an obvious copyright notice, meant to be seen immediately and easily read. With Photoshop it's simple to add a layer of text and create a new file, different from the original photo.

So I'd simply call them both a possible marketing method, in this case using Wikipedia as the media. Since most people will not click the thumbnail to see who took the photo, this kind of overprinted notice makes sure the photographer's name is seen regardless. And using WP for that purpose strikes me as the real abuse, more a form of COI. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point in regards to just having the name or perhaps a URL, and perhaps we should consider rejecting such photos for that reason alone. I think we should really think hard about taking away that particular marketing method.

That being said, it seems to me that having a (C) along with the name is worse. We have an image that claims to be under a free CC license and simultaneously claims to be copyrighted. And of those two conflicting messages the "I am copyrighted, do not use me" message is the one that is more likely to have been placed there by the image creator. I really think we should reject all such images if we really want to show due diligence in avoiding the use of copyrighted material. If I were an official representative of the Wikimedia Foundation, I certainly wouldn't want to try to explain to a court why I ignored the big (C) on an image. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A "(C)" mark on a photo is in no way contradictory to a free release under cc-by-sa. Freely released works continue to be nominally copyrighted by their authors, so the "(C)" mark is formally correct. Of course, we prefer images without such marks, and will remove them if when can, but there's no way we can stop owners from putting them on, and if an uploader feels that an image released by somebody else is still useful despite the annoying mark, there is no reason why we should stop them from uploading it. In the case of File:"Evergreen" (3749508914).jpg, the name of the copyright owner according to the mark on the image is the same as that of the Flickr account owner who released it, so there is no reason to doubt the license is genuine; moreover, the uploader on Commons is somebody else, so the suspicion that the owner was misusing Wikipedia for sneaky self-promotion seems unfounded. Same situation with the other example, File:Unknown_hairy_creature_on_stump.jpg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, but having a photographer's name printed on a photo is still blatant promotion by the photographer. You can browse hundreds of thousands of photos on Fine Art America, for instance, and you'll find that none of the photos have a photographer's name printed over the image as it would make it unsaleable. People don't buy, or even accept for free, photos to display, having that kind of unnecessary text. And if someone uploads someone else's photo with that kind of notice, it's still promotion - unintended by the uploader, maybe, but intended by the photographer.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't implying anything about the two examples I picked other than them being examples of what I am talking about. My question was about the general topic of images with watermarked (C) symbols, not those particular images. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

NLS Map archive

Some of you may be aware that the National Library of Scotland contain an extensive map library, including many online copies of maps that have fallen into the public domain. The NLS's FAQ page clearly states this incompatibility with free commercial reuse, required by CC-BY-SA :

Can I republish, sell or supply the printouts on to third parties?

Not without permission off the National Library of Scotland. Our printouts are supplied for private, non-commercial purposes, and permission must be obtained for any further publication, display or resale.

However, consensus on Wikipedia appears to be that, at least under US copyright law, mere reproductions of the map scans, which is the case here, do not contain originality, and copyright thus expires when that of the original map does. In the case of Ordnance Survey maps, this is 50 years after the end of the year of publication. National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute and Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. have been frequently cited case studies.

The reason this is important is due to File:M11 link road protest map.png, which I thought was based on a scan of a map from my own collection. However, while I do have several scans of 1:25,000 maps that are out of copyright as described in the file, this image is actually one I downloaded from the NLS map collection some time back. (Sheet TQ38 Sheet TQ48).

So, my question is - is the copyright information on this image correct or not? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if Crown Copyright expired in 2011 then it's certainly not {{PD-URAA}} (which requires it be PD in the UK by 1996). It looks like it should be {{PD-BritishGov}} given the information you posted, but I'd want to look into it further to be sure of publishing date, etc. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

old OS maps are covered by {{OldOS}}, a sub of PD-BritishGov. From the age it'll be PD-1978 for US purposes. NtheP (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone with {{OldOS}}. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Tahir Ul Qadri's banner for March.png

iM NOT SURE if this is a copyvio or not. Its from facebook and claims to be officially released. Can anyone confirm?Lihaas (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Facebook provides no information about the copyright status of the image. I've tagged it with "no permission" so that the uploader can clarify if he has permission somewhere else. If not, it will be deleted in a week. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Californai.jpg

Is this image eligible for copyright? --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No doubt that it is. Graphic designs are original art. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

NB file moved to File:California Love cover art.jpg.--ukexpat (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Sergi1982

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I'm a little concerned by Sergi1982 (talk · contribs)'s uploading of album/single covers. Many have been deleted (where s/he has proceeded to simply reupload them and reinsert them into articles again), and others have what I believe to be incorrect licensing. Many of his uploads (for example, this and this) claim that these images are his "own work". I'm not too savvy with Wikipedia's copyright rules, but considering they are album covers, this screams out as being a simple lie. A look at his Commons account shows a talk page littered with notices saying that many of his uploads have been deleted because of incorrect licensing. Am I being too vigilant in this, or should an admin take a closer look at his upload logs? – Richard BB 15:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The files are on Commons, so if you are looking for an administrator, the right place is Commons:COM:AN, Commons:COM:AN/U or Commons:COM:AN/B. It is very unlikely that he made the CD covers himself, so I tagged them all as potential copyright violations. If he did make the covers himself, he should follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT and send evidence of this to OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it there. – Richard BB 15:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda poster still under copyright?

I'm having trouble believing that this image:

File:Liberators-Kultur-Terror-Anti-Americanism-1944-Nazi-Propaganda-Poster.jpg

is still under any copyright. It was produced for the Dutch SS in 1944. The image page does not make clear who the copyright is thought to be held by. --Yaush (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, the copyright expires 70 years after it was published (if it is anonymous) or 70 years after the death of the artist (if it is not anonymous). In the United States, the copyright expires 95 years after it was published. The poster is less than 70 years old, so it is currently protected by copyright in both the Netherlands and the United States.

The copyright holder is presumably the artist, or, if the artist is dead, the artist's heirs. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The summary on the image page says that the poster is the work of Harald Damsleth who did not die until 1971 so it is still in copyright. NtheP (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

KFC logo

Can I use this image: [9] on the KFC page outside of the main infobox? It is no longer their main logo, but is still used prominently at many KFC branches throughout the world. Farrtj (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As a non-free image, and not the current primary logo of a company, you would need a strong justification to include it, not just as a representation of the company. If you can find some background about how the logo was designed, or the like, specifically discussing that, it may be possible to keep it. (I was going to suggest that it represents the Colonel but this is already in the current logo, so that's a non-starter). --MASEM (t) 00:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well it's in the Advertising section of the page, and a brand logo is a form of advertisement. I mention the logo explicitly, " A change in 1997 added a smiling Colonel prominently to advertising." Farrtj (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not sufficient. We need sourced discussion about the older logo, not just to say how it was different (why did they add the smile, for example?) --MASEM (t) 03:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue at Jimbo's talk page

It appears we're at a bit of an impasse over a copyright issue at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Your opinion on the inclusion of an image under Fair-Use on Execution of Rizana Nafeek. Can a few people head that way and see if the issue can be cleared up? Ryan Vesey 23:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

...or we could just leave it FfD and the article's talk page where it belongs. If Jimbo wants to join the conversations there he can just the same as any other editor. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I too dislike the fact that it was brought to Jimbo's talk page. Ryan Vesey 19:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

permission to use info.

Hello, my name is John and i am writing a book on the 12 steps.May i use your site respectfully? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.49.14 (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, as long as you comply with some requirements. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for more detail.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

IMage

I just received a notification that I did not add copyright information, but I would like to delete the picture I uploaded altogether. How can I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tajack (talk • contribs) 17:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your contribution history does not indicate you have uploaded any images. Which image are you referring to? ww2censor (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It was File:Bech et al. Study Hazard Ratios for Coffee Consumption and Fetal Death.png which was already deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Beyonce Knowles Inauguration 2013.png

Can someone confirm if this a non-free image? I think it is. The user who uploaded the image has previously uploaded non-free images of the singer. — Oz 20:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup, from Getty [10]. Thanks for spotting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate terms?

Resolved

 – thanks

I just came across File:Earl Mindell at Get Motivated Seminar, Cow Palace 3-24-09 1.JPG while doing some Wikignoming. The licensing and use terms imposed by the uploader (particularly If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the file, please contact me to negotiate licensing terms.) appear to me at first glance to be incompatible with Commons, but I am not an expert. Thoughts please?--ukexpat (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. The image is licensed under CC-BY-SA (which requires quoting a URL or a long legal document as well as attributing the photographer) and GFDL (which requires quoting a long legal document as well as preserving the copyright notice). A special permission could be a permission which allows you to publish the image without mentioning its licensing status or without attributing the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a problem, as the template seems to be pretty clear that it's referring to "use of this file outside of the licensing terms". It's just some additional information, not superseding the dual-licensing of the image. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks, resolved.--ukexpat (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of Books

Hi!

I took some pictures of books and uploaded them on their respective pages. I read the following from Wikipedia: The legal rights for images generally lie with the photographer, not the subject. Simply re-tracing a copyrighted image or diagram does not necessarily create a new copyright—copyright is generated only by instances of "creativity", and not by the amount of labor which went into the creation of the work. Photographs of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright, though others may continue to hold copyright in items depicted in such photographs.

I thought that this meant that I could take a picture of a book. Why am I wrong?

Thanks.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

If you take a photograph of a copyrighted work, you are creating a derivative work - yes, you have the rights on the photo, but the book cover is still copyright to the publisher. So while you may put the book photo under a free license, the copyright of the book cover makes the photo a non-free for purposes of WP. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

What if the book is freely distributed? Or what if I make the pictures a low resolution picture or just made virtual rendering of it? Does that satisfy the following note:

Thanks, Sosthenes12 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

While the use of {{Non-free book cover}} may be appropriate for your image it must comply with all 10 Non-free policy guidelines, and as stated in the licencing tag must be used an article about the book shown in the image. Actual book distribution really has no bearing on the issue but if the book in completely in the public domain or released under a free licence that we accept then it would not be a non-free image. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note also that a book that is freely distributed as in "free of charge" may still by non-free in terms of copyright. De728631 (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Upload Question?

I suspect I should sign my question at the bottom, but I'll also do it here at the top BEDownes (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC) I have been working with Wikipedia (to my great delight) in creating a page relating to my grandfather, Jerome Myers, whose works can be found in more than 80 museums including many of the most important in this country. It took some struggle and experimentation to learn how to do the formatting needed in the way I wanted, but the final results have been terrific and I have been told the information has been of great help to many of the museums and art historians involved in the subject of American art in the early part of the 20th century.

Anyway I'm now just starting to create a page on Ethel Myers, Jerome's wife (my grandmother), who was quite a fine and celebrated artist in her own right. I am the sole owner of the estates for both Jerome and Ethel Myers and my goal in recent years has been to make more and more of their works available to the general public to view and enjoy. In this regard I have already done some uploading in the past, but I just wanted to ask what might be the best way to do it properly. Where I have graphics (usually photographs of works such as painting, drawings, etchings and such) or scans or photographs I have made myself of the works directly, I can't anticipate any problems regarding copyright. Other photographs (some of them as much as a hundred years old) were paid for by my family to the photographers, many of whom did not even include the typical name identification on the back of the photos. I doubt any of them are alive by this time, and even if they were, I don't think this public domain declaration of the work would ever generate a complaint.

I first tried to do my upload using the Upload Wizard. Step 1. Chose your file Step 2. Describe your file (Descriptive name & description of contents) So far, no problems. Step 3: Provide source and copyright information. (I checked the button "This is a free work.") The program then suggested I it would be better if "I consider uploading your file on Commons."

I looked below first and saw there doesn't seem to be a single button to properly indicate the Copyright Status in my case.

In looking at a Wikipedia Commons art template its detailing is really something more suitable for a museum form. I then saw a note saying "Faithful reproductions (without specific creative contribution from the photograph) of 2D art only require a license for the artwork, like

" That sounds more like what I should be using.

How do I go about filing in the right form? Also would that work for scans I have done of photos of paintings and drawings created by my grandparents and part of the estate documentation which I own and control?

Forgive the length of this question, but please ignore my degree from Columbia University and just try to treat me like an idiot. How do I go about doing this in the easiest way possible to process dozens of pictures under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL if PD-art qualifies under this label?

Thank you so much for any help you can provide.

BEDownes (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The PD-art template is useful as long as the artwork itself is in the public domain; it basically says "This artwork is PD because of ___, and this reproduction is too simple to get additional copyright". You need to explain why the artwork is in the public domain. For example, if your grandmother were to have died 100 years ago, you could use {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} or just {{PD-Art-100}}. If her works were published ("published" has a tricky definition; I can't remember the details) before 1923, {{PD-1923}}. If the works are still under copyright and you want to upload them because you're the heir, the best choice is a Commons template, Commons:Template:PD-heirs. I don't exactly know how it works, so I hope someone else will come along who knows it well. 98.223.199.119 (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to release your inherited works under a Creative Commons and GFDL license, you should send an email to the Wikimedia Foundation with a list of images and file names you'have uploaded, confirming that you have inherited the original works from the creator and have now released them under a license "X". Please see Commons:Email templates for instructions. When you have sent that mail, please tag each of those images with {{OTRS pending}}. De728631 (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Publicity stills

Are publicity stills from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s allowable for uploading to, and including in,Dan-Shrabi (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Wiki articles?

• Unless you took the photograph personally, or can contact the person who did, generally no. Our CC-BY-SA licence, which allows anyone to copy and modify all our free images, and even sell the modified versions, isn't usually compatible with what professional photographers want. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Pre-1978 photos first published by American television networks, like NBC, are out of copyright because they omit copyright notice, required by Copyright Act of 1909. Of course, finding an old publicity photo may be scarce, but try eBay. --George Ho (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Permission from deceased person

Hi

I'm new to all this so am finding it quite challenging.

I've submitted an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ivor Beddoes but have a query about permission from the owner of the photo 'Ivor and Janet Beddoes dancing'. My parents died many years ago and this is one of the photos left to me. I'm not sure what to do next, can you help please!

Best wishes

Julia (Dunn) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Dunn (talk • contribs) 15:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your parents appear on the photo, so it is unlikely that any of them is the photographer. You need to ask the photographer to send in evidence of permission according to the instructions at WP:CONSENT. If the photographer is dead, then the permission should come from the photographer's heirs instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The laws on copyright have been changed since this photo was taken. It was taken in 1933, correct? If I am not mistaken material published back then, had to have its copyright renewed after 28 years. And, when copyright owners didn't do so it would fall into the public domain.

Do you know if this photo has ever been published in the past? This matters as there are different rules for unpublished photos.

If your original photographer was a friend of your parents, and they were still alive, and was still lucid, it is very likely they would say -- "but when I gave your parents that photo, back in 1933, I thought I gave up all rights to it at that time!" In that case I think you would be authorized to give permission, if you were their literary executor, and inherited all their intellectual property rights. Do you have siblings who would also inherited their intellectual property rights?

You may not even know who took the photo. There are different rules for truly anonymous photos. (And, if I am not mistaken, different rules for photos that are both unpublished, and taken by parties unknown.) Sorry, I am not sure what these rules are.

Sometimes it seems to me that we try to be more catholic than the pope, when imagining ways in which images someone wants to upload here could lapse from perfect respect for copyright. Sorry! Geo Swan (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you upload to Commons they have a number of licences for inherited images like Commons:Template:PD-heirs. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Doushite_Kimi_wo_Suki_ni_Natte_Shimattandarou_cd+dvd.jpg

Hello. I'm sorry to upload this picture without reliable information but I really don't know the detailed information of this picture so I would be happy if someone can give me information about this picture. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lh3a (talk • contribs) 08:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have taken the File:Dams in Akola District.JPG from data at India-WRIS Version 3.0 (http://india-wris.nrsc.gov.in/WRIS.html?UType=R2VuZXJhbA==?UName=) Para 4 of the introduction reads "The system's present portal contains 12 major info systems, 35 sub info systems having 114 spatial layers along with large attribute data of the water resources assets and temporal data of 5-100 years. Based on the National Map Policy (2005) and CWC data dissemination policy, the portal has two versions. The public domain version complies with both policy guidelines." Also it is a Government Of India web site "....gov.in" Due to these two reasons I assume that this and the Govt of India web sites are Public Domain.Is my assumption correct.Pmvelankar (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Help!

I just uploaded this onto Commons and now I think there may be a Non-free-marked duplicate here on Wikipedia! Can you please check?! Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) C 01:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

uploading an image...

I would like to upload a self portrait to David Gommon (English painter) wiki page.

the image is a photograph of a self portrait. the self portrait or photograph have never currently been published and was sent to me directly, via email, by the artist son Peter Gommon with the wish of the image being placed on his Wikipedia page...

I'm struggling to find the correct licence for this to be uploaded... which should i select?

Kind Regards

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gommoart (talk • contribs) 13:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Before you worry about the license to use, you will need to get a proper permission from the copyright owner, see WP:IOWN and WP:CONSENT - note that we will require permission to use for all purposes, permission limited to use only on Wikipedia is insufficient.--ukexpat (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! i'll forward the link to the owner straight away! cheers --Gommoart (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Photographs from tripadvisor.com

I saw somebody uploading images from the tourism website tripadvisor.com. This website features user-submitted photographs (of hotels and the like). It tells its uploaders: "you are granting TripAdvisor the non-exclusive rights to use, copy, re-purpose and display those photos at our discretion" [11]. To its users, it encourages hotlinking to images, with the words: "Please copy & paste this embed code onto your site: [...] TripAdvisor images may only be used with attribution back to TripAdvisor. Using the TripAdvisor embed code renders the image with an attribution line that satisfies this requirement." Otherwise, the site has an "all rights reserved" copyright notice.

Can we treat this as an {{attribution}}-type free license? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, we're talking pictures of standing hotels and other attractions? They would never be allowed per NFC. Even if there's issues with freedom of panorama, we would expect a "free" photograph of a copyrighted building to be a replaceable version of someone else's copyrighted image of that same building - yes, the file is still non-free but at least when the copyright on the building runs out, the immage immediately defaults to a free image for us. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nah, non-free use is of course out. The uploader wants to have these treated as free, that's the point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly no, that's not comparable with a free license; TA is still asserting non-exclusive rights on such images, even if you attribute it properly. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you can only use the images by copying and pasting specific code from TripAdvisor's website. I'm not convinced that you can copy the image to your own website, that you can modify the images or that you can use paper copies of the images. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Banksy artwork

I initiated a discussion on Banksy artwork on commons here. I thought some of the editors who frequent MCQ might want to take part in the discussion. Ryan Vesey 23:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Katyhuff User page question, a photo of me by a roommate

I've just received notice from Sfan00 IMG that the photo of me on my own User page will be deleted if I don't come up with a non-free rationale (User talk:Katyhuff#Rationale for File:Katyhuffback.png) . However, it's clear to me that everyone involved is okay with me using it. It's just not clear to me how to express that for wikipedia's purposes.

So, this picture was taken of me by a friend (in fact, my roommate) for a photography class. It was very casual, and I never signed a model release, so it may actually be the case that I own the photo. Not being particularly well versed in the details of copyright law, it's not clear to me what is the case, but it seems absurd that a picture of me, that she sent to me without caveat, and that she won't be using for any commercial purposes (because she doesn't have my model release to do so) should have a problem with fair use. Please describe in more clear english, rather than wikipedia jargon, what you want me to do in this case. Is it sufficient, for example, for me to forward the email in which she requests to take my photo for her photography class? Does she need to send a separate email? Do I need to add some metadata to the photo? And, if so, exactly which metadata would you recommend? After reading through the Non-free rationale tag information you linked to, I still don't know what, specifically, I'm being asked to do.

Katyhuff (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:IOWN for the process to communicate permission to Wikimedia.--ukexpat (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Dayna Steele

The picture of Dayna Steele that I would like to add to her Wikipedia page is found on her website and is freely and readily available to anyone and yet I need copyright permission to use it? I don't understand why I'm unable to use it. I'm happy to take any steps necessary, but, as I said, it's free to use on her website and is under the heading "headshot". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96mustanggt (talk • contribs) 00:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What does "free to use on her website" mean? You can see it and you can probably copy it but you don't have any permission to use it. I looked at the website and while there is no specific copyright notice anywhere I could find we must therefore presume it is copyright so we cannot use it without verifiable permission from the copyright owner who may not be the subject but the photographer. You may be able to get the copyright owner to specifically release the image under a free licence so you could always ask them to give their WP:CONSENT to us. BTW we don't accept any non-free images of living people. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Bolton School Logo

Can you advise on how I should tag/reference/cite the Bolton School logo? The logo, which represents the whole school, was created by a design agency called Typestyle back in 2007. I am not sure whether they still exist. However, the work that they did in creating a suite of logos for the School was commissioned by myself and they handed over all copyright to the School upon completion and payment for the job. Your advise would be much appreciated. Thanks. John Newbould (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The image description and tagging for File:The Bolton School Logo.png is basically adequate at present. The copyright is owned by the school, who we can presume would not wish to freely license it; but on the article about the school, the logo image is being used by Wikipedia under fair use. The one thing you should do to fix the image page, is to add a link to the school's website under "Source", since that's where one can obtain the logo from.

Incidentally, don't you have a version of the logo in SVG format? It may work better than PNG. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. However, it was this message that I received that worried me and prompted my above question:

Thanks for uploading File:BS BRAND main.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Legobot fixed it up for you. What you saw is really a usability problem in the upload process and template combination. You can thank Fayenatic london for this useless (in your case) message. it was added to the template on 20:48, 29 September 2012‎. Myself I do not appreciate the message when I upload non-free logo's but at least the bot corrects the bug. If there is a consensus we could have it removed. But thanks to the bot, we can leave it as it is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Chicago Public High School League video

I made a video of an entire Chicago Public High School League game between Jabari Parker's Simeon Career Academy and Jahlil Okafor's Whitney M. Young Magnet High School. Can I post videos for the purpose of illustrating articles from this game.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't see why not, immediately. Assuming it was a public (open to all) event on US soil, you can release screengrabs as a CC-BY/-SA or public domain license without question. There may be issues if certain frames include pieces of copyrighted art within them, but likely your focus was on the events and thus such inclusion would be considered de minimus and not afoul of copyright. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not talking about screengrabs. E.g., I might make a 30- or 60-second video of the layup lines for shootaround. I used one camera body to video the whole game and another that I used to take pictures (at basketball games, I shoot about 30-35 shots per minute of play with my Canon EOS Rebel T4i, which shoots at 5.0 fps). I have nearly 1200 images from the game as well as a full vidoe. I am pretty sure I will be able to illustrate 5 or 10 articles once I winnow down my results.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That should still be okay; you may want to check the preferred video encoding methods at Commons (I believe they use Ogg-based ones) but like screengrabs, you should be in the clear as long as you were in a public location where photography or video taping would not have been restricted. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It was a public event at the Emil and Patricia Jones Convocation Center. I don't know whether regular patrons were allowed to have cameras or not.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask this another way. WP widely accepts photo contributions from editors at Major League Baseball, National Football League, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, National Collegiate Athletic Association and other leagues. However, if one were to post a video of an entire event or a major portion of it, that would probably be considered a rebroadcast or retransmission without express written consent. If one were to even post a 30-second video from a National Basketball Association that might be something that would infringe upon a copyright. In fact, it might be the case that even a 3- or 4-second highlight might be violative in this regard. This is the context in which I am asking whether I can post a video clip from a high school game that is instructive. If I were to post a clip from layup lines at this game at shootaround, would that be prohibited or am I limited to photos? Also, keep in mind that ESPN broadcast this game online.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I see your question. In the cases of MLB, NFL, etc. etc. games, the footage is being made under license by the sports organization, via the broadcast network in question. Further, as a condition of entering said event (price of admission) you typically give up your rights to create footage. Basically, as you say, its a copyright landmine, and why we rarely allow footage from it for en.wiki unless it clearly meets NFC policy. In your case, you have a game that doesn't have a major profession league behind it trying to claim rights on footage. You yourself personally took that footage with your equipment, ergo, you have the rights to release that footage in any way you see fit. If you do chose to license it as CC-BY/PD, then it can be of any length for use on commons and subsequently en.wiki. Again, there may be a few gotchas (if you had to purchase admission, and with that purchase, they prevented photography or video taping, we wouldn't accept that, but I can't see that being the case here). Even if ESPN did broadcast the game, as long as you personally were not restricted from photography or video tape, your capture of the game is completely in your control for how to release it. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

O.K. I will eventually get to posting a video in that case. I will also use a screengrab so that Emil and Patricia Jones Convocation Center has an image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting permission from a youtube contributor?

I'd like to get permission for the screen capture File:Joseph McElroy, NYUFASP, 2012.jpg made from this youtube video with their standard license. I'm ignorant of youtube, in particular, I have no idea how to contact the user. If there is a way, I'd appreciate if some volunteer can, as I'd strongly prefer not to do so myself. Choor monster (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The onus is on the uploader, i.e., you, to provide the necessary permission, source and licencing for any image they upload. First you have to determine if the YouTube uploader is in fact the copyright holder of the image and if they are you can ask them to release the image under a free licence. If that is the case you will have to get them to verify their permission to us by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. If you click on the YouTube uploader's name it brings you to their page where you see that the uploader also has a website of the same name, wwwhatsup and on the main page is an email link. Use that and see if you can get their permission. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Matt O'Connor page

Permissions

Page name: Matt O'Connor

My addition to the page Matt O'Connor was removed, on the grounds that it added copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder.

I have permission from the copyright holder to release the text and images included under the draft article under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA) license allowed by Wikipedia.

Matt O'Connor has emailed his permissions for reuse under the CC-BY-SA to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating his ownership of the material and intention to publish it under a free license. We haven’t as yet heard anything.

Matt O’Connor has added a note at the site of the original publication http://www.linkedin.com/in/mattgoconnor stating that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain.

I have added a new draft version of the article at | this temporary page.

Is there a way to expedite the resolution of these issues and get the new page up? At the moment there is no information currently listed at Matt O'Connor.

Thank you - please send responses to my talk page User talk:Mcguirl1

Mcguirl1 (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid that you will have to be patient. The team that processes permissions are all volunteers and there is usually a backlog. Also note that even if appropriate permission is received, the material may still not be suitable for Wikipedia (I haven't read the reverted edits so I can't comment on the specifics). And remember, there is no deadline.--ukexpat (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

de minimis and related questions

I've received licensing permission via OTRS for several images. See for example:

• File:Texas State Senator Rodney Ellis and family.jpg
• File:Texas State Senator Rodney Ellis.jpg
• File:Rodney Ellis 1.JPG
• File:Texas State Senator Rodney Ellis and family 2013.jpg

While the permission statement itself is fine, I'm concerned that each of the photos has a painting in the background, very possibly subject to copyright.

If the pointing image is de minimis, I can simply proceed, but I am concerned that not all qualify as de minimis. Would those with experience in this are identify which, if any, qualify as de minimis, and if I am correct that for the remainder, I need some evidence either that the painting is suitably licensed, or ask that such permissions be arranged.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would double check at Commons, but I would agree that a concern of whether de minimis is applicable here ; the painting is a highlight - even if not the primary focus, of each photo, and unless the Senator (or whomever filed the OTRS) has the copyright on the painting, that's a separate copyright that would need to be obtained to make the image "free". That said, if these all were allowed under CC-BY - meaning we can alter them, a tight crop (for example in the 2nd one, to around the Senator's head and body) will still retain some part of the copyrighted painting in the bg, but now at a usage that de minimis could likely be argued to exist (read: Free image) (with that crop, while someone may be able to ID the painting, it no longer is a highlight of the work.) This may be more difficult do to on the 4th one which has that multiple umbrella art, but I think you have three that you can work from to start. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Instagram PD?

Is there any reason to believe that File:WE ON Stauskaspng.png is from a PD source?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, so I have tagged this as having no evidence of permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

License tagging for File:LauraElizabethRichards.jpg

Hello,

I received the following message (see below) regarding setting the copyright tag associated with a portrait photo that I uploaded.

MESSAGE:

   License tagging for File:LauraElizabethRichards.jpg
   Thanks for uploading File:LauraElizabethRichards.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this     information.
   To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In following the instructions above to edit the text I see the following entry associated with this image:

   Laura Elizabeth Richards.  This is an historically significant fair-use image.  It is of a person no longer living.  It was scanned from an original carte de visite photo purchased by me and is given free for public use. {{PD-US}}

   {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons|bot=Svenbot|priority=true}}

Is there something wrong with how the {{PD-US}} tag is indicated?

In looking over the list of tags I also think that {{PD-old-70}} might apply.

As I believe the image is already tagged, I assume there must be something wrong with how I have added the tag into the text. Can you suggest why the I received the above message even though the {{PD-US}} tag is there?

Thanks,

Jayras

You can ignore the message on your talk page - you updated the file info page after the bot left that message for you.--ukexpat (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)