→question about peggy.jpg: explain a bit |
m refactor for clarity that could be misunderstood |
||
Line 425: | Line 425: | ||
I got a message that I needed to indicate the copyright information on an image I uploaded. How do I do that? I will confirm with the person whose picture it is, but I believe it is a personally owned picture from her own collection, with no copyright. How do I indicate that? And if it turns out I am incorrect, how do I label who owns the copyright? Basically, I guess I need to know how to edit image information. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ctaylor64|Ctaylor64]] ([[User talk:Ctaylor64|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ctaylor64|contribs]]) 13:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I got a message that I needed to indicate the copyright information on an image I uploaded. How do I do that? I will confirm with the person whose picture it is, but I believe it is a personally owned picture from her own collection, with no copyright. How do I indicate that? And if it turns out I am incorrect, how do I label who owns the copyright? Basically, I guess I need to know how to edit image information. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ctaylor64|Ctaylor64]] ([[User talk:Ctaylor64|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ctaylor64|contribs]]) 13:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:Questions relating to how to add copyright information after the fact are so common, we have the answer at the top of the page. (also note, the upload form has a drop down menu for license, so when you upload, you can choose the license there. however, if you forget to do that when you upload, read the instructions at the top of the page). That said, the photo has a copyright. Under US law, all creative works are automatically copyrighted by their creator. So in this case, whoever took the photo, owns the copyright (unless it was a work for hire, say by a professional photographer, and the rights were transferred to the subject under contract). Did you take the photo yourself? If not, you really should be uploading other's creative works without their expressed permission (or without concrete evidence the work has been licensed freely). So we either need an official website or something of the sort with a copyright notice, stating the corresponding free license, or you need to check out [[WP:PERMISSION]] and have the copyright holder (the photographer, not the subject, unless rights were transferred) e-mail us a declaration of consent ([[WP:CONSENT]]). I know this may all be a bit overwhelming, but we have a very strict policy on copyright and licensing, as we are the free encyclopedia, and we must ensure our content is licensed freely. Hope this helps. If you have any follow up questions at all, from how copyright and licensing works on Wikipedia, to how to edit an image page, feel free to ask, and I (or another volunteer) would be glad to assist you. Good luck. -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |
:Questions relating to how to add copyright information after the fact are so common, we have the answer at the top of the page. (also note, the upload form has a drop down menu for license, so when you upload, you can choose the license there. however, if you forget to do that when you upload, read the instructions at the top of the page). That said, the photo has a copyright. Under US law, all creative works are automatically copyrighted by their creator. So in this case, whoever took the photo, owns the copyright (unless it was a work for hire, say by a professional photographer, and the rights were transferred to the subject under contract). Did you take the photo yourself? If not, you really should not be uploading other's creative works without their expressed permission (or without concrete evidence the work has been licensed freely). So we either need an official website or something of the sort with a copyright notice, stating the corresponding free license, or you need to check out [[WP:PERMISSION]] and have the copyright holder (the photographer, not the subject, unless rights were transferred) e-mail us a declaration of consent ([[WP:CONSENT]]). I know this may all be a bit overwhelming, but we have a very strict policy on copyright and licensing, as we are the free encyclopedia, and we must ensure our content is licensed freely. Hope this helps. If you have any follow up questions at all, from how copyright and licensing works on Wikipedia, to how to edit an image page, feel free to ask, and I (or another volunteer) would be glad to assist you. Good luck. -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:18, 29 March 2011
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.
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. |
|
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
---|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
free speech flag
File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg has been deleted off of english and commons wikipedia. I have been told that the image has been 'oversighted'. You can see some deleted revisions related to the image here : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_3&action=history
There are two questions.
First, the flag itself is based off of this flag: at Yale University Law & Tech site.
As you can see, the flag is simple geometric shapes (6 colored rectangles) and 4 letters. Under US copyright law, is this not un-copyrightable for that reason alone?
There is an alternative version of the flag; it is simply 7 colored bars. I would imagine the argument in that case is even stronger?
Secondly, the HD DVD Free Speech Flag exists on many wikipedia pages. I am not understanding how this is different from the ps3 free speech flag. The HD DVD flag file is here: File:Free-speech-flag.svg and the key itself is even listed in this article : AACS_encryption_key_controversy.
Also see:
- Illegal number
- CMU professor Dave Touretzky's gallery of DeCSS steganography
Thank you Decora (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure that is the name of the image as the deletion log entry does not appear? If a take down order is given then the image may have to be removed, despite what policies here say. It may be possible that the number is covered by copyright, and that the image is being used as a way to circumvent that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- the edits were Wikipedia:Oversighted, thats where there is no deletion log etc. the key number itself does not have to be listed, only a bunch of colored bars. the intent is irrelevant, you cannot copyright 7 colored rectangles (or 6 colored rectangles + 4 letters) no matter what they represent or what you intend by it. please see Wikipedia:Logos and template:pd-text for more info. since the rectangles cannot be copyrighted, their use cannot be a violation of copyright. any law that attempted to ban a sequence of colors in a flag would be a violation of the First Amendment (congress shall make no law infringing the freedom of speech, press) and unconstitutional under US law, and also a violation of the Universal declaration of human rights. Decora (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- And why is the HD DVD flag OK but the PS3 flag is not? Decora (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:Free-speech-flag.svg has also been nominated for deletion. —teb728 t c 02:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- And why is the HD DVD flag OK but the PS3 flag is not? Decora (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- A number may not normally be copyrighted, per threshold of originality. See Feist v. Rural where an entire book of numbers was not copyrightable, nor any of the numbers included within it ("raw data does not satisfy the originality requirement".) Keep in mind the numbers in that case were organized and correlated with other data, and there were more. Int21h (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works.
Can anyone point to any such "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" that is anything other than remotely similar to the flag in question? If not, the flag should not be removed for copyright reasons which do not exist. The other categories do not apply; eg., the work is not a literary work, or software. Also, threshold of originality may apply. A simple string of digits, or colors, or shapes, in the form of a flag or otherwise, would likely not meet this originality, by any stretch.
Every individual on Wikipedia is expected, by law, to know this, as well as all other United States and Flordia laws; ignorance is no excuse. It may be available for Trademark, however, but unless trademark is claimed, such a reason again should not be used for removal.
I have not seen this flag, because the Wikimedia page log says
17:28, 6 March 2011 Decora (talk contribs) uploaded "File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg" (comment removed)
but the flag is not there, and there is no deletion log. Int21h (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the stated flag does not actually represent any kind of "PS3 freedom" as it does not actually let PS3 users do anything interesting. It's a key used to generate factory service dongle keys (which is useless except in some niche scenarios). Somehow it has been mistakenly popularized as some sort of "master key" and repeated by users, but the reality is that it is completely useless. A representative "key" for PS3 freedom would be the "metldr Da key" that geohot released, which is in fact the signing key that can be used to authenticate executables for every manufactured PS3 to date. Not this one.Marcan (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little more concerned that this was oversighted to (what seems to be) avoid scrutiny/sweep the issue under the rug, rather than a valid use of oversight tools. This should never have been oversighted. -- Ned Scott 19:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Alright, please post all the information about who actually deleted, oversighted, etc. this deletion so that we may get their credentials revoked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.204.158.146 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm assuming this fell under WP:OFFICE. But it should be tagged as such, to make it more clear. Otherwise, it looks like the other image will be kept after the deletion discussion on commons. If that happens, this one can be re-uploaded there unless counsel advises otherwise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion as an WP:OFFICE action is one thing, but oversighted? I could see it being oversighted if the file name itself contained the key, but it didn't. -- Ned Scott 19:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have oversight access and can't see the logs but I believe the same thing is done at Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy. Being sued is expensive, so I can understand (regardless whether I agree) why they might do that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I can't. Even if I agreed that the key should not be on wikipedia in any shape or form, oversight is another level on top of deletion. Why make it so there isn't even a log entry? This isn't some kind of personal information or something that could put people in danger. Oversighting still doesn't remove the data from Wikipedia servers. Unless they were afraid that there was going to be a wheel war with admins restoring and re-deleting the information then it was not a valid use of oversight tools. Copyright violation isn't enough for oversight. Like I said before, the oversight alarms me more than the actual deletion. -- Ned Scott 20:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have oversight access and can't see the logs but I believe the same thing is done at Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy. Being sued is expensive, so I can understand (regardless whether I agree) why they might do that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- It was me that originally directed Decora here when they enquired about this on IRC (I have no other involvement in this and I have never viewed the image concerned or any of the pages concerned). There is clearly significant uncertainty over whether oversighting this image was appropriate. Decora, I suggest you email the Audit Subcommittee as per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee#Procedure, refer them to this thread, and ask them to comment. Not as a suggestion that oversight was "abused" in any way by the oversighting admin, but for a clarification of whether this is an acceptable use of oversight. Oversight is a very powerful tool and its use in this instance makes it extremely difficult to discuss the removal of the image productively, or to raise its removal in an appropriate forum for community comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I find it lame that a file is deleted without a notice. Why not add a note: "Deleted by Office because of xxx se (link). Signature."? --MGA73 (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be good. But, for example, we might have gotten a legal DMCA "takedown" notice, and the legal group might still be talking about it. They will eventually explain what's up but it can take a day or so. I'm not saying the lack of information is good, though, I think they should have posted a note when they oversighted the image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- What's really annoying is that whoever it is is still hard at work oversighting or whatever (see the entry in my watchlist in the image), but refuses to come out of the "inky shadows" (as the Car Talk guys would say) and give Decora the common courtesy of informing her what's going on. I think Decora has a very legitimate grievance... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- looks like edits containing the key in text have also been oversighted in PlayStation 3. -- Ned Scott 02:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
i might as well point out that File:NewFreeSpeechFlag.svg predates the File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg by more than a month, (i didnt find it until after i'd uploaded the 6-bars black text version). It has not been deleted either. Decora (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Given the outcome of this discussion [1], which was strongly unanimous in keeping the other flag, I'd say you would be justified in re-uploading the image to commons. If someone wants to make an official statement to contradict that, they are of course free to do it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- i emailed the arbitration audit committe as suggested by Demiurge1000 and will wait for an outcome.. i asked another person familiar with the matter yesterday if i should just upload the flag, they said basically no. Decora (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the other image related to this File:NewFreeSpeechFlag.svg until we know the outcome of this issue. I find it personally odd that one image is kept, but the exact other is nuked (I personally think if the other one was named with regards to the PS3, it would have been nuked too). Once the outcome is determined, then we will move forward. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Then what about File:Free-speech-flag.svg ? it is essentially the same thing. Decora (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dealing with different keys (and issues). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- What is the difference? I dont understand. The issue is not copyright law? Decora (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- The image kept was that of the HD DVD key, which has been resolved a few years ago. The Sony key, which is of the deleted files, is still ongoing and Sony is sending take down notices. Can't say this is exactly happened in our case because I don't know, but once we do figure out what is going on with the Sony key, we can move on from there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Who did Sony send takedown notices to? Wikipedia? I think that [citation needed]. When was the HD DVD key resolved? thanks for the info Decora (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- If Wikipedia got a take down, we cannot say. As for others, http://www.techspot.com/news/42569-geohot-on-sony-ps3-hacking-lawsuit-beating-them-in-court-is-just-a-start.html among other sources states "Sony is still threatening to sue anybody posting or distributing PS3 jailbreak code, despite the fact that the company accidentally tweeted the PlayStation 3 security key." The best place to look for take down notices is at Chilling Effects, but none from Wikipedia that I am aware of. As for the HD DVD, I remember being one of the admins trying to scrub the key from the site when it first came out, but in the span of....I would say about 3 weeks, the issue was resolved and we could keep everything. I will have to look this up later. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Who did Sony send takedown notices to? Wikipedia? I think that [citation needed]. When was the HD DVD key resolved? thanks for the info Decora (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- The image kept was that of the HD DVD key, which has been resolved a few years ago. The Sony key, which is of the deleted files, is still ongoing and Sony is sending take down notices. Can't say this is exactly happened in our case because I don't know, but once we do figure out what is going on with the Sony key, we can move on from there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- What is the difference? I dont understand. The issue is not copyright law? Decora (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dealing with different keys (and issues). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Then what about File:Free-speech-flag.svg ? it is essentially the same thing. Decora (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the other image related to this File:NewFreeSpeechFlag.svg until we know the outcome of this issue. I find it personally odd that one image is kept, but the exact other is nuked (I personally think if the other one was named with regards to the PS3, it would have been nuked too). Once the outcome is determined, then we will move forward. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- i emailed the arbitration audit committe as suggested by Demiurge1000 and will wait for an outcome.. i asked another person familiar with the matter yesterday if i should just upload the flag, they said basically no. Decora (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I have hit upon an explanation of why oversighting File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg makes sense. Arguing from analogy: My telephone number is 10 digits long. I have no possible copyright claim on it, for it contains no originality, and I didn’t create it anyway. But if someone posted, “teb728’s phone number is (xxx)xxx-xxxx,” nobody would question that an oversighter would suppress it. Similarly if someone uploaded a color bar and 4 extra digits with the explanation, “Reinterpret the 6 hexadecimal digits of the RGB value of the bar as decimal digits, and append the 4 extra digits. The result is teb728’s phone number.” An oversighter should suppress that as well, for it reveals the same private information. Well, just as my phone number is my private information, so Sony’s key is their private information; and protecting privacy is one of the normal and valid uses of oversight. The whole argument about whether the image is copyrightable is irrelevant. —teb728 t c 09:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Except that the only reason given for the deletion was 'copyright violation'. nobody mentioned privacy. Additionally, Sony did not sue George Hotz and members of fail0verflow over privacy law, they sued them over copyright law, the DMCA law (part of copyright law), tresspass, Misappropriation, Tortious interference, Breach of Contract, California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the computer fraud and abuse act, etc. is one of those related to privacy? i dont know, maybe tresspass
- Secondly, "There is no protection for information that either is a matter of public record or the victim voluntarily disclosed in a public place. ". . considering Sony re-tweeted the key on twitter...i think they may have a hard time arguing that Decora (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thirdly, corporations do not have exactly the same rights to privacy like people do. Lower court ruling (Proskauer.com) was recently overturned by the Supreme Court (India Times) (story in the Atlantic) Decora (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- (EC. In reply to TEB728)No, that's a very different situation. Wikipedia has strict policies regarding living people in regards to privacy, but a company is not a person (at least not as far as Wikipedia is concerned).
- What is much more likely is that Sony is making a claim that, despite how widespread this and other PS3 keys have become known, that having the information on Wikipedia is a tool for bypassing digital rights management. So even if the key itself isn't copyrightable, it's apart of a DRM system, and protecting that key becomes a copyright issue under the DMCA. They might not even care about this key, which isn't the recent Geohot key that has been in the news lately, but are systematically sending out take down notices to any site that has posted any of their keys.
- I think CBM's right that this is simply a case where things are still being discussed/processed, and that's why we haven't seen any official notice about this. It's still very strange and troubling that there isn't anything being said. Not even a simple "There's an issue regarding this and we can't talk about it right now, so please stand by". And while I still don't think that it would have required oversighting, having some notice would at least tell us that maybe the Foundation is just playing it safe right now until things have settled (likely when some ruling in the Geohot/Sony case is made). As it is now it just causes confusion and frustration. -- Ned Scott 14:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where did Sony claim anything about wikipedia? Citations are needed. Decora (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is not just us, but everyone. Sony is still threatening to sue anybody posting or distributing PS3 jailbreak code, despite the fact that the company accidentally tweeted the PlayStation 3 security key. Sony last week was granted permission to obtain information about who downloaded files and watched a video pertaining to the hack of its PlayStation 3 gaming system. So even just eyeballing something on youtube can get you a lawsuit notice from Sony. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- thanks for the insight, very much appreciated. Decora (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know for sure if this is Sony's doing, but I believe it to be the most likely explanation. Just another reason why we need an actual explanation for what's going on here. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just a note to mention that some vaguely related discussions are occurring currently and/or previously and/or in the future at Wikipedia talk:Office actions and Wikipedia talk:Oversight. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know for sure if this is Sony's doing, but I believe it to be the most likely explanation. Just another reason why we need an actual explanation for what's going on here. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- thanks for the insight, very much appreciated. Decora (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is not just us, but everyone. Sony is still threatening to sue anybody posting or distributing PS3 jailbreak code, despite the fact that the company accidentally tweeted the PlayStation 3 security key. Sony last week was granted permission to obtain information about who downloaded files and watched a video pertaining to the hack of its PlayStation 3 gaming system. So even just eyeballing something on youtube can get you a lawsuit notice from Sony. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where did Sony claim anything about wikipedia? Citations are needed. Decora (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Uhm... I wonder, why nobody asked the reasons to the user who hid the image? (or any other oversighter) -- Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good question. My understanding is that the issue was raised with an oversighter five days ago, and the response was to confirm that the image had been oversighted; but an explanation as to why, was not available. ----Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- thanks for the note. when i emailed the arbitration audit committee, i asked them why it was deleted, they said that was outside the scope of their committe to answer questions like that.
- IIRC i also left a message on the editors talk page. the discussion got kind of complicated, i had posted a link to an article that had the hexcode for the key as a citation for the flag, and they felt that itself was a problem. then i just asked if it was ok to post the flag by itself, i think they said basically no. you can see my talk page IIRC and link to the discussion on the editor's talk page. Decora (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the two (the editor removing the flag in the article and the deletion/oversighting) are directly related. There are a few editors who don't think the key should be in the article, and the talk page indicates that this isn't the first time someone has tried to mention it. Besides, it's not like just anyone can find and oversighter and get something oversighted just because they personally believe something might be a copyright issue. -- Ned Scott 21:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Decora. I am a member of the Audit Subcommittee, which exists to investigate complaints of misuses of CheckUser and oversighter privileges, since, as you have noticed, they leave no public logs and are opaque to most editors. To clarify our response: we are currently looking into the use of suppression in this case. However, the point that was made in our reply was that administrative decisions about deletion are up for the community at large to decide, so while we might decide that suppression (which hides an item from even administrators) was unwarranted, it wouldn't mean that the file would necessarily be undeleted. Dominic·t 21:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dominc, thanks for writing. The File:Free-speech-flag.svg , which is virtually the same issue at hand, was unanimously voted for 'keep'. I can imagine that if PS-3 free speech flag came up for a vote, the results would be similar. However, I would like to know how long we can expect to wait for a decision before the flag can be reposted and brought to a vote? Decora (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Any new news? — MK (t/c) 09:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- No. I have heard nothing. I have received no email from any committee, and I have seen no edits to my talk page, and I have seen nothing in the 'wikipedia sign post' magazine, nor anywhere else. Decora (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- If Sony sent a DMCA takedown then it should have been posted for all to see as was previously done with takedowns such as wmf:File:DMCA PCI.pdf and others in wmf:Category:DMCA. If a DMCA takedown was not sent to the WMF and Sony is only making public threats, then the file should not have been deleted and oversighted. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- well, it has been two weeks and counting, not sure what i should be doing, if anything. Decora (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- according to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee/Reports it can sometimes take 60 days or even 100 days for them to make a decision. Decora (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- If Sony sent a DMCA takedown then it should have been posted for all to see as was previously done with takedowns such as wmf:File:DMCA PCI.pdf and others in wmf:Category:DMCA. If a DMCA takedown was not sent to the WMF and Sony is only making public threats, then the file should not have been deleted and oversighted. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- No. I have heard nothing. I have received no email from any committee, and I have seen no edits to my talk page, and I have seen nothing in the 'wikipedia sign post' magazine, nor anywhere else. Decora (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Any new news? — MK (t/c) 09:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dominc, thanks for writing. The File:Free-speech-flag.svg , which is virtually the same issue at hand, was unanimously voted for 'keep'. I can imagine that if PS-3 free speech flag came up for a vote, the results would be similar. However, I would like to know how long we can expect to wait for a decision before the flag can be reposted and brought to a vote? Decora (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Got this today: "This note shall confirm that the Audit Subcommittee is still reviewing the circumstances surrounding the suppression of File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg. As you may know, the subcommittee will be changing personnel within the week and we will make our best efforts to conclude our review in a timely manner once the changeover is complete." Decora (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Links related to this issue:
- *User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_24#Official_Office.2FWMF_response_to_HD-DVD_key_controversy
- *Wikipedia:Keyspam
- *Talk:Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy#unecyclopedic_argument_is_unconvincing
- Thanks for the update. Sorry to hear that this is taking so long. -- Ned Scott 12:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just came across this undeletion request on commons for the file commons:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg -- Ned Scott 12:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. Sorry to hear that this is taking so long. -- Ned Scott 12:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Dead person, photos from over 65 years ago, probably PD-USGov but no source
I'm working on an article about a mariner who was awarded a medal for service as a cadet of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy during World War 2. He died a few years ago.
I have located several images of him online, and want to arrange the best possible copyright situation for using one on the Wikipedia article about him.
I've been told by the webmaster of the website that this image was provided to him for use on the website by the mariner's relatives. I've arranged for emails to be sent to the relatives, but there has been no reply.
The image on this page at The Times of Malta was almost certainly created by a U.S. government employee (it's a wartime image of him probably taken for publicity purposes), but I can't prove that, and the webmaster of that site has not replied to my emails asking about the source. Likewise the image of him used here at Marine Log Magazine is again almost certainly taken by a U.S. government employee during wartime, but again I can't prove that.
Is the most appropriate thing to;
- use one of the three images under Fair Use, since he's dead and there's no way of obtaining a freely licensed version;
or,
- use the image from the Times of Malta or from Marine Log Magazine under Template:PD-USGov-DOT even though I can't specify a fully accurate source? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure if this helps or not, but there's another photo on the USMM.org site which says the photo was provided to them by Francis Dales himself. page-Photo courtesy Francis Dalesphoto There's a similar black & white photo of him in this book (photo section after page 178): At All Costs: How a Crippled Ship and Two American Merchant Mariners Turned the Tide of World War II. The image in the book says it was provided by Mrs. M. Dales from the family collection. Both photos show him wearing his medal. Hope at least one of the sources will provide you with a photo for the article. We hope (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- his death doesnt matter. . its the death of the author of the work that matters, some x number of years after they die the works copyright goes away. you might try telephoning the times of malta, their phone # is on their contact page. its a long shot. good luck Decora (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- His death is relevant for fair use, since it means that producing a freely licensed image (if none exists) is now impossible. I might try phoning, thanks for the idea. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Khalid-Saeed
File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg This image is uploaded illegally from this web site Masrawy. There is a copyright at the bottom of the website.
- The person who uploaded it is claiming fair use.
- The photo is owned by a family member, and no permission has been given to use it, which is discussed at length here Wikipedia:Non-free content review
- This is a blatant violation of copyright and should be deleted on sight per Wikipedia policy. USchick (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Under fair use, no permission is needed, however the image has to meet the 10 criteria in WP:NFCC. If you can demonstrate that any of these are not met, then the image can be removed at the appropriate time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please don’t engage in forum shopping. The image is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg. If you have something to contribute, enter it there. —teb728 t c 08:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Non-free content review is finished with consensus that NFCC criteria has been met. What if consensus is in violation of policy? Is there any point in discussing it here? For example, the source of the photo is a Facebook page. USchick (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, there is no point discussing it here. You would get the same answer here as there. (See the paragraph on “Tendentious editing” at Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building pitfalls and errors.) —teb728 t c 12:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Non-free content review is finished with consensus that NFCC criteria has been met. What if consensus is in violation of policy? Is there any point in discussing it here? For example, the source of the photo is a Facebook page. USchick (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please don’t engage in forum shopping. The image is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg. If you have something to contribute, enter it there. —teb728 t c 08:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I use a google earth image.
I have an aerial view of a high school that I would like to add to the page, but I not sure if that is ok. Richl51889 (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
From this page http://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines.html it seems that as long as I include the attribution text, but I don't know there is a lot of information on this page and it is difficult to decipher. Richl51889 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you can't. It's non-free content, and even if Google were okay with us claiming "fair use" for it, we couldn't do so under our own non-free content criteria. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- What if I took a picture with my camera, I can take a picture of my computer that just so happens to have a screenshot of google earth. Richl51889 (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Google earth / maps license is not free enough for Wikipedia as it imposes some restrictions beyond the CC licenses. For example you are not permitted to remove the word Google from the image water mark, restricting the right to make derivatives. Commercial use is limited, you cannot put it in a book, tv show, or sell it. For your own use you could make a screenshot, but for use here it is not free enough. There are already enough non free images of google earth here that we don't need a non free one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Using letter as reference
I have a letter from my wife's (now deceased mother) in a jpeg file. I'd like to post it as a reference on the Big Basin Prairie Preserve page, however not sure what permissions to use. My wife Janie Stein is happy to have this letter from Feb 1975 posted. I just couldn't get through the licensing pages. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Bates (talk • contribs) 23:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry but Wikipedia is not a reliable source; so even if you did upload it, you couldn't use it as a reference. —teb728 t c 02:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- what if he just wants to scan the letter and upload? without calling it a reference? there are countless examples where people upload personal stuff, like a guy who uploaded his grandparents concentration camp ID card. i would assume in this case the license he wants to choose is either creative commons or public domain. to be 'super official' about it, they could use the OTRS system, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS Decora (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Deletion policy when free image is replaced by non-free
Jean-Bertrand Aristide had a free use image for its infobox, File:Clinton&Aristide.jpg, which was replaced by File:Jean-Bertrand-Aristide.jpg, a non free image. After image was tagged for being non free use for a living subject, uploader contested. IMHO, the rationale to keep the non free image isn't valid, as there is a free one available which the user removed. Does policy ever allow the replacement of a free image for a non free one? Thanks! We hope (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader could perhaps make an argument that the specific alternative, File:Clinton&Aristide.jpg, doesn't qualify as a satisfactory replacement, because it's too small and low quality to show the subject properly. However, since the subject is still living, he can't defeat the more general argument of replaceability (i.e. that some other new image could be created). The argument he actually did make in the hangon tag, that an image is needed from the time Aristide actually was president, is invalid. We do generally accept images of a person's current looks even if their notability is grounded in an earlier period of their lives, and in any case, Aristide was president until just a few years ago and he can't have changed that much since then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fut.Perf. is correct. File:Jean-Bertrand-Aristide.jpg is obviously a replaceable by any non-free image so clearly fails WP:NFCC#1 and the historical argument is rubbish. A front-on portrait would, of course, be preferable. What he looked like at a particular point in time is not important in identifying him in his own article. Any image would be appropriate for the infobox. ww2censor (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- The current photo is actually a photo of Bill Clinton shaking hands with Aristide, it's not a portrait of Aristide and you can barely recognize him. And Aristide was kidnapped/exiled in 2004, 7 years ago. I've spent several hours looking for a free use image, without any success. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fut.Perf. is correct. File:Jean-Bertrand-Aristide.jpg is obviously a replaceable by any non-free image so clearly fails WP:NFCC#1 and the historical argument is rubbish. A front-on portrait would, of course, be preferable. What he looked like at a particular point in time is not important in identifying him in his own article. Any image would be appropriate for the infobox. ww2censor (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- What TEB said. Or, you could try contacting a photographer who has already published a non-free one, and ask for a free release. Some photos have recently been published by political organizations that are apparently friendly to Aristide [2] and may well have an interest in promoting him, so they might not be averse to giving us one of their images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
How can I add a photo from other website to Wikipedia?
I have prepared a page about a well known person in Kerala, India. I wish to use his Facebook profile photo in the Wiki page. How can I add that photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeepkottayi (talk • contribs) 15:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- You cannot, unless the owner explicitly releases it under a free license, such as cc-by-sa. You could ask them to provide such a license in the form of a statement on their Facebook page, or to mail it to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org". Without such a license, I'm afraid there's no way we can accept it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Would there be a case when a Facebook photo is permissible without a release? I'm asking because there are cases where Facebook photos are being used. USchick (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fair warning, Fut.Perf., you are being set up here in an "asking the other parent" situation. This contributor does not agree with consensus at a non-free content review conversation and is looking for an answer that suits her better. Asking legal counsel is one thing; repeatedly asking other Wikipedians is quite another. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Would there be a case when a Facebook photo is permissible without a release? I'm asking because there are cases where Facebook photos are being used. USchick (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hugh DeHaven photo
Hugh DeHaven and Dr Furnas <<<< I need someone to check this image, and Terms of Use page to see if they agree that this image could be used under Fair Use or something similar. I feel I'm in a gray area of Academic Use and just want to double check. Please leave msg on my Talk. Thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 19:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- The text says to contact the Buffalo University for rights. It looks as if it was in a private collection, by an unknown photographer and only published recently on the web site you give. Fair use does not have to be granted by copyright owner. However is there a use for the photo? If there was an article on one of the people, that has since died, perhaps you could crop it back to just show that person. But you should consider if other photos are more suitable or whether there are any free ones around. By the way they provide a reference URL: http://ubdigit.buffalo.edu/u?/LIB-UA004,35 that should not change. This would be the preferred way to refer to the item. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Presumably it is for Hugh De Haven, which the OP is working on. —teb728 t c 20:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- The 1949 image is still in copyright and the Terms of Use clearly state that material from their website is for academic use and prohibits commercial use, so, unless you can show it to be freely licenced, the terms do not allow us to use it. I don't see any evidence that Hugh DeHaven, if he is the same person you are referring to, is dead, however, if he is, you could possible justify use here under a fair-use claim. ww2censor (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is WP considered commercial? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- You probably want to read WP:NFC, especially the explanation of policy that explains why non-commercial content is not acceptable to the Foundation. ww2censor (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- FYI, one of the sources does provide year of death (I added it to the article), so non-free content could be used. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Is {{PD-USGov}} applicable for photos, which were produced by Los Alamos National Laboratory? I think no, but I don't want to decline this request at WP:FFU, without absolutely sure about it. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 11:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- It might depend on the photos. Abstractly, I'd paint a wide paintbrush and say no. Even though it's a federal site, they're claiming copyright on their website which is quite unusual for a federal web site. So, there's different factors at play here. When in doubt... --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Personal experience, the National Labs are sanctioned by the gov't but run academic or commercial entities. So no, work produced by the Labs are not PD-Gov as they are rarely gov't workers. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of File:Jean-Bertrand-Aristide.jpg before I was able to comply with info request
The fair use rationale for this image of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was challenged and I gave reasons why it should not be deleted. In response, I was asked to provide more detailed information about the image on the image details page by March 29 (I believe). But someone has completely deleted the photo (diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean-Bertrand_Aristide&diff=420086604&oldid=420080331 ), so I can't comply with the request. Is there any way to restore the photo so that the evaluation process can continue? I tried to undo the deletion, but the image file itself has apparently been deleted. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what request for "more detailed information" you are referring to. What I can see is that the image was regularly tagged, you were duly notified, you entered your objections on the file page, then the other editor reacted to that with a second ("disputed rationale") tag. At that point the file was still in the regular deletion queue based on the first tag, and an administrator duly processed it on that basis and (predictably) overruled your objection. Incidentally, the image was also discussed here on this board, a few threads above this. Here too there was a clear consensus for deletion. It's really a routine, open-and-shut case. You'd need some rather extraordinary argument to make it not fall under the deletion criteria. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- The administrator had posted a template requesting additional information, and gave me a deadline to fill out the template. But now the template and all the other info are gone. My impression was that no decision would be made until after I supplied the requested information. If that info can be undeleted or viewed, you can see what I'm talking about. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. That second template was merely an additional means of placing the image into yet another deletion "queue", and as such rather redundant to the first. The two processes are logically independent, and as I said, the first tag meant it was going to be reviewed for deletion by an administrator 2 days after tagging. Which is just what happened, and since you had the opportunity of raising your objection within those 48 hours, and in fact did take that opportunity, all is within due process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I thought the second request had a deadline of March 28th. I never had a chance to submit the requested information. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- What information would that have been? If you make a convincing case against the replaceability, the image can in principle still be undeleted at any time (either by the administrator who processed it, or through WP:DRV). But it would have to be a very exceptional argument to succeed. Frankly, nothing in what you have said so far makes me expect you would have had any "information" to offer that could have defeated the very simple finding that this is a living, public political figure who can still be photographed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I thought the second request had a deadline of March 28th. I never had a chance to submit the requested information. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. That second template was merely an additional means of placing the image into yet another deletion "queue", and as such rather redundant to the first. The two processes are logically independent, and as I said, the first tag meant it was going to be reviewed for deletion by an administrator 2 days after tagging. Which is just what happened, and since you had the opportunity of raising your objection within those 48 hours, and in fact did take that opportunity, all is within due process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- The administrator had posted a template requesting additional information, and gave me a deadline to fill out the template. But now the template and all the other info are gone. My impression was that no decision would be made until after I supplied the requested information. If that info can be undeleted or viewed, you can see what I'm talking about. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Adding an image
To whom it may concern,
I work for FRONT magazine and have full permission to add an image of the front cover to Wikipedia. How can I add this without it being removed?
Thank you.
Matt Harvey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfjharvey (talk • contribs) 13:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- We already had a cover on the article, which I've now restored. Please be aware; permission to use on Wikipedia is meaningless to us. Unless an image is released under a free license, we must treat the image as a non-free one, and use it under terms of WP:NFCC policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Stuggling to understand the correct copyright classification
Hi, I personally took several screenshots ( one of which is File:Aimstor-policy.PNG ) and I've been advised I've got the wrong copyright classification. I must admit, I am a little lost.
Here are the facts:
- I took the screenshots - Its a commercial product - I have no desire to put any restrictions to the pictures use. They are their for information and I dont see they hold any value.
Advice please to what I should change please?
Thanks
Fabkins (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like the copyright type is wrong, but it is the lack of a Non-free use rationale that is an issue. You need to explain why we should allow the inclusion of the non-free image on WP. The given page has some templates that will help address those points. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Use of images
Hi I am uploading images to my company's wiki page Sideshow Collectibles, and I keep getting messages that I can't use the images or I'm not tagging them correctly. The images are photos we took ourselves so how do I tag the images correctly? Here are the images I'm trying to use on our page. File:SCLobby.jpg File:SideshowHeadquarters.jpg File:SDCCBooth.jpg
23:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarissaBlack (talk • contribs)
- We don't usually use copyright images and those you uploaded are copyright with a fair-use claim, however, they are replaceable, so a fair-use claim will not be acceptable per WP:NFCC#1. If you wish to freely licence the images, then we can use them and tag them as such but the copyright holder must verify their permission by sending us their WP:CONSENT, however, they need to understand that under a free licence the images can be used by anyone for anything, including commercial usage. Wikipedia use alone is not sufficient. You should also be aware, based on your statement above, that your contributions may be considered a conflict of interest. BTW, File:SDCCBooth.jpg has already been deleted. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
How do i create a copyright tag?
I just uploaded a picture, and i do not want it to get deleted, so how do i create a copyright tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebigguy1103 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 March 2011
- Looking at the images you uploaded it appears you found the images on various websites but they are most likely copyright images belonging to others and not to you. Unless you know they are freely licenced and provide a proper link that shows that fact, or they have been released by the copyright owner and they verify their permission, we cannot use them. So we cannot suggest an appropriate copyright tag for them. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Questions on music scores and copyright
Pre-article question. I am looking to have user Fae make a photocopy of the Mirra Intermezzo. Listen here: [3]. He will have to go to the British Library and copy it manually. Then User Adam Cuerden would compose a sound file of the piece. The concern is that while the opera dates to 1920 (an Italian), the sheet music was published in 1932 (checked two sources, same date). So are we clear or wasting our time? I don't want to do a bunch of multiperson work and then AFTER find out we were unsat. thanks. The sound file would be use on en:wiki in a GA article, but the usage is too remote to justify fair use.TCO (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC) refactored by The Interior (Talk) 02:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- The composer Domenico Alaleona died December 28, 1928, so you need to check Italian copyright expiry, this is over 80 years ago, so probably expired. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, commons:COM:L#Italy says 70 years pma so it's definitely PD there, but it was still copyrighted in 1996 and so would be subject to the URAA, which I think means that it's still copyrighted in the US for 95 years after publication and would only become PD here January 1, 2028. Of course it's entirely possible the URAA will be overturned (and commons does allow content which falls into this fuzzy category), but if it was published in the US with a proper notice and renewed appropriately it would still be copyrighted for the same length of time even ignoring the URAA (and would not be allowable on commons or here). International copyright interaction isn't my strong suit, so I may have missed something. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Tarkett
I have been trying to upload several images to the English Wikipedia "Tarkett" page. File:Tarkett_Group_Headquarter.jpg, File:Meadowlands_L.jpg, etc.. All images have been obtained with the permission of Tarkett S.A. via their public "Tarkett Media Library" on Tarkett Group's corporate website (http://www.tarkett.com/group/en/press/media-library). What licensing criteria do I have to choose in the Wikipedia up load licensing scroll down in order to admit the images. Many thanks for your help, BBPMB — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBPMB (talk • contribs) 09:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see you are trying to use those images in a gallery in the Tarkett article. In order to use them in a gallery they would have to be licensed under a free license. Presumably Tarkett will not license them that way, particularly since the article is about to be deleted as blatantly promotional. —teb728 t c 12:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:Images from Pitts Theology Library Digital Image Archive
Hello. Can someone with experience in copyright issues check out Category:Images from Pitts Theology Library Digital Image Archive? From what I can tell, all files there belong at Commons since they are reproductions of very very old woodcuts. Yet the category contains a lengthy explanation from the uploader claiming copyright ownership and restricting the use of these images to fair-use situations. How do we handle these cases? Pichpich (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- nevermind my last posts. i think you are right about the legality. per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. The Pitts images on english wikipedia have a link to a 'permission' thing stating they are 'ok for non-commercial use', but as you seem to imply, that is incorrect legally because they are technically public domain, thus free for commercial uses as well. (and also acceptable for commons) Decora (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- i think there is an ethical question though. alot of archivists are nice folks doing hard work, good work, who just have a misunderstanding of copyright law. i think it might be good to try to email them and try to gently ask for some clarification before posting their stuff to wikipedia. another solution is to look for the same/similar images from google books; google understands it doesnt own copyright to old stuff, it just asks politely for attribution. but i am no expert, just my amateur opinion. Decora (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- i have just confirmed one of these images can be found in google books. In particular, google has scanned the profusely productive illustrator Samuel Clark, from the 1600s, one work in particular entitled "The marrow of ecclesiastical history: Contained in the lives of one hundred ..." By Samuel Clarke, http://books.google.com/books?id=_A8bAAAAYAAJ , written in the 1600s, has a hundred or so pictures of christians from the past. Page 572 has a picture of Jo. Alasco (the same picture as Pitts apparently) page 894 has a picture of Drusius (also apparently the same that Pitts has). There is even an index at the front of the book by the person's name. Decora (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree about the ethics argument. This is in part why I asked the question here. Surely this is not the first time that this situation has occurred and there's probably some form of established protocol. Pichpich (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:GLAM for cooperative projects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree about the ethics argument. This is in part why I asked the question here. Surely this is not the first time that this situation has occurred and there's probably some form of established protocol. Pichpich (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- i have just confirmed one of these images can be found in google books. In particular, google has scanned the profusely productive illustrator Samuel Clark, from the 1600s, one work in particular entitled "The marrow of ecclesiastical history: Contained in the lives of one hundred ..." By Samuel Clarke, http://books.google.com/books?id=_A8bAAAAYAAJ , written in the 1600s, has a hundred or so pictures of christians from the past. Page 572 has a picture of Jo. Alasco (the same picture as Pitts apparently) page 894 has a picture of Drusius (also apparently the same that Pitts has). There is even an index at the front of the book by the person's name. Decora (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Graph from academic paper
I would like to use a graph from an academic paper in an article. Specifically, I would like to use Figure 1 from "How Far Are We From The Slippery Slope? The Laffer Curve Revisited"[4] in the Laffer curve article, as it would greatly enchance understanding of the topic. I realise that diagrams like these are covered by copyright, but is there a fair-use justification for its use in the article, to illustrate the main findings of the paper? LK (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would say that it is easily replaceable by another similar graph that you draw and release for free, so it would fail the fair use criteria. The data for the graph cannot be copyrighted, and you can change axes labelling, form of line etc. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- The graph was created based on simulation of a theoretical model – there is no 'data for the graph'. One can say that the graph illustrates the main findings of the paper. Does fair use apply then? LK (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- You could use the same model to make up point for the graph, or you could read off several values from the graph to create data. Fair use would only apply if you were talking about that particular publication of the graph in the article (critical commentary), and that the other recreations of it could not replace it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- The graph was created based on simulation of a theoretical model – there is no 'data for the graph'. One can say that the graph illustrates the main findings of the paper. Does fair use apply then? LK (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Royalty-free personal use
This is the license I have and the photographer from whom I got the photos emailed confirming I can use them on IMDB, Wikipedia, etc. But I am told this does not fall under free license so i should check here. Let me know if you can help as I would like to upload an image under this license
Royalty-free personal use The owner ("Owner") of the copyrighted photograph being purchased (the "Work"), hereby grants you the non-exclusive, non-assignable, non-sublicensable, and perpetual right to use, reproduce and distribute the copyrighted Work for personal non-profit purposes, and to incorporate the copyrighted Work, in whole or in part, into derivative works for non-profit distribution. You are prohibited from using the Work for any other purpose, including: using, reproducing or distributing the Work and/or materials incorporating all or any part of the Work for profit; selling or distributing electronic copies of the Work as standalone files or as part of a product from which a person is able to extract the Work as a standalone file; distributing the Work in or as part of an electronic template (e.g., as an image available in a word processing or web page creation application) intended to be reproduced by third parties on electronic or printed products; or using the Work as part of a trademark, service mark or logo. Owner retains all other rights in the Work and any derivative work, including without limitation, the right to use, copy, sell, license, and distribute copies of the Work in all markets and territories. In consideration for the grant of this non-exclusive license, you agree to pay Owner the amount specified, due and payable immediately prior to your downloading a digital copy of the Work. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws designated by Owner, now or in the future.Winniep32 (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am afraid that that license does not meet Wikipedia's requirements - use, reproduce and distribute the copyrighted Work for personal non-profit purposes is not sufficient as Wikipedia requires a license for all purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I recommended that you ask here with specifics about what image you wanted to use and how/where so you could get feedback on whether it would be possible under our non-free content policy and guideline. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am wanting to upload an image of my son to his wikipedia page Robert Naylor which was taken at the Young Artist Award on the red carpet. i purchased 3 images which gave me the above license. So with the additional information provided, can someone tell me if it can be used under the non-free content policy and guideline? Winniep32 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- If I want to upload a photo I got from him, what do I need to ask him for so that I can upload on Wikipedia? I do realize I can put up my own photos but these were really nice so want to see if I get to a point of getting some sort of acceptable authorization from him that fall under the guildeinesWinniep32 (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- The key is the copyright owner. You need to get express permission that meets Wikipedia's requirements (see WP:PERMISSIONS) from whomever owns the copyright. Then you must follow the process set out at WP:IOWN to communicate that permission to Wikipedia for review. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Photo of a trademarked product
If I take my own photograph of say the packaging of an iconic confectionery product, am I able to upload it onto Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interscan (talk • contribs) 08:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- This may be possible on fair use on the article about the product. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm doubious. There would have to be something about the container of product For exampe a bottle of "New Coke" might re relevant to a Coca Cola history article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to edge that it will likely be considered a 2D derivative image of a 3D copyrighted work, which means it will be non-free and treated that way, but it would help if the actual product was mentioned. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Work of the United States Government?
Concerning File:Gul Mudin.jpg, I'm not sure how to interpret http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html regarding "as part of that person’s official duties". Does the reasoning from File:Abu-ghraib-leash.jpg apply here, which has a notice saying: "Pictures taken by U.S. military personnel on duty are ineligible for copyright, unless the photographer successfully claims that the photographs were not taken as part of his or her official duties"?
See also long dispute on Talk:FOB Ramrod kill team about this.
Amalthea 09:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please conduct further discussion at Talk:FOB Ramrod kill team or at the relevant pages on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- I haven't looked into the details of that particular image, but there is a distinction. The fact that someone works for the government doesn't make everything they do public domain, even during work hours. It's only if they create it as part of their actual job duties, so in the case of soldiers who have been ordered to take pictures then they would be PD (as in the case of the Abu Ghraib photos as far as I'm aware), but not if they happened to take a quick break during the course of a day to grab a personal snapshot (or write a novel, or whatever). VernoWhitney (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- As far as i know in the case of the Abu Ghraib photos nobody ordered them to take the photos. For the FOB Ramrod kill team: The killing of Gul Mudin File:Gul Mudin.jpg happened during the soldiers regular service, it all happened while these soldiers where on active duty patrolling the area. There are tons of sources that confirm that they where on regular patrol when it happened. [5], [6],[7], [8], [9]... IQinn (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- None of the sources you cite state that it was a part of their official duties (which is what is necessary to to claim free license) to take photographs of the people they had killed. Since they are being charged with murder it is obvious that they were not acting in an officially sanctioned capacity. You have admitted as much.
- The Abu Ghraib photos were made public domain because they were used in evidence at a trial and according to the licensing; "The photographers of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos have denied this [copyright?] under oath". (whatever that signifies) There was a vote as to whether they should be kept, which of course has nothing to do with copyright law.
- Speigel repeatedly claims authorship of the photos. "© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011, All rights reserved, Reproduction only with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH, "All our material is copyright-protected" and they provide a link where the images can be licensed. http://www.spiegelgruppe-nachdrucke.de/syndication/homeeng.nsf The Spegel group has altered these photographs and as such they contain their intellectual property.
- The burden of proof is on the uploader to demonstrate there is no copyright infringement. V7-sport (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- It has been shown that there is no copyright violation. (your are repeating yourself that has always been cleared) The Spiegel has never claimed copyright for these images. "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." What we discuss here is if the soldiers who took these images of the crime could claim copyright and that seems not to be the case.
- All of the sources state that the killing of Gul Mudin happened during the soldiers regular service, it all happened while these soldiers where on active duty patrolling the area what was there official duty at that time and they can not claim copyright for a work that was produced during their official duty. Another point is that these images have been seized by the DoD and they are as well part of a court case. IQinn (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- As far as i know in the case of the Abu Ghraib photos nobody ordered them to take the photos. For the FOB Ramrod kill team: The killing of Gul Mudin File:Gul Mudin.jpg happened during the soldiers regular service, it all happened while these soldiers where on active duty patrolling the area. There are tons of sources that confirm that they where on regular patrol when it happened. [5], [6],[7], [8], [9]... IQinn (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, it has certainly not been shown that there is no copyright violation. Stating that Spiegel has never claimed copyright for these images flies in the face of reality. I've posted the copyright claims and the address where you can get a legitimate license to publish the photos. Being on a "kill team" was not a part of their regular service, or is taking pictures of enemy dead against standing orders not to do so; that is why they are being court marshaled. These photos will eventually become public domain, for the moment they are not. That's verifiable by going to the licensing link. V7-sport (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- (your are repeating yourself we had this already see the talk page of the article there is no copyright violation) Der Spiegel does not claim copyright and "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." If someone has the copyright than that would be the soldiers and that is the topic of the discussion. These images are made by the soldiers during their official duty to patrol the area and the killings happen during their official duty. We had this also. The question is not if it was part of their official duties nor if they where ordered to do so is relevant for the copyright. The point is: "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." IQinn (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, it has certainly not been shown that there is no copyright violation. Stating that Spiegel has never claimed copyright for these images flies in the face of reality. I've posted the copyright claims and the address where you can get a legitimate license to publish the photos. Being on a "kill team" was not a part of their regular service, or is taking pictures of enemy dead against standing orders not to do so; that is why they are being court marshaled. These photos will eventually become public domain, for the moment they are not. That's verifiable by going to the licensing link. V7-sport (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
They state- © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011, All rights reserved, Reproduction only with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH, "All our material is copyright-protected and they provide a link where the images can be licensed. http://www.spiegelgruppe-nachdrucke.de/syndication/homeeng.nsf so they are claiming copyright. It isn't their official duty to shoot unarmed civilians or take photos of corpses against orders. Violating orders and the laws of war is not a part of their official duties. Repeating the same thing over and over to get the last word is not a compelling counterargument. V7-sport (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- That was never an counterargument and the speedy deletion tag has already been removed from the image page because the image is in the public domain. These are the compelling counterarguments and your refusal to get the point is not helpful: Der Spiegel does not claim copyright and "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." If someone has the copyright than that would be the soldiers. These images are made by the soldiers during their official duty to patrol the area and the killings happen during their official duty. The question is not if it was part of their official duties nor if they where ordered to do so is relevant for the copyright. The point is: "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." IQinn (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
You are both wrong: It’s totally irrelevant whether der Spiegel claims copyright on the version they published. And it’s mostly irrelevant whether the original photograph is PD or copyrighted to the photographer. Somebody modified the image, blurring the face of the victim. And that somebody (or his employer) has copyright on the modified image. His copyright is automatic whether he claimed it or not. So the modified image can be used here only under WP:NFCC. Establishing significance for this photo should be trivial. And until the original is released at the court martial, a good case could be made that it is not replaceable (despite the fact the original was leaked to der Spiegel). —teb728 t c 05:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Somebody modified the image, blurring the face of the victim. And that somebody (or his employer) has copyright on the modified image. His copyright is automatic whether he claimed it or not." That is correct and they have claimed it. Really, a free version of this, released at the court martial will be out any time now. Indeed, if the person involved is getting 24 years in a federal prison there isn't much need to suppress it.V7-sport (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree blurring the face is not something that can be copyrighted and Der Spiegel has not claimed copyright for the image. It is all over the media and internet and it is in the public domain as taken by the soldier during their official duty in patrolling the area. But i agree that Fair use is certainly possible to do and it is obviously that the images is highly important to the article and it should be added to it as soon as possible. IQinn (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Stating, over and over, that "Der Spiegel has not claimed copyright for the image" is patently false. It is as follows "© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011 Alle Rechte vorbehalten Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet GmbH. © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011 All rights reserved Reproduction only with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH. The link above gives you licensing information. A free version will be yours soon enough when it comes out in the courts-martial. V7-sport (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- (We had this already) Der Spiegel does not claim copyright for these images they are all over the media and the internet and "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." IQinn (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- The sentence "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof" was posted by a wikipedia editor, not a representative of the Spiegel group or anyone else in authority. Stating that doesn't make their copyright claim void. When they are shown elsewhere Spiegel is credited. V7-sport (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeap the sentence "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." was posted by another Wikipedia editor as part of the discussion and he is right you have never shown that they claim copyright for blurring the face. These images are all over the media and the internet. IQinn (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- The sentence "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof" was posted by a wikipedia editor, not a representative of the Spiegel group or anyone else in authority. Stating that doesn't make their copyright claim void. When they are shown elsewhere Spiegel is credited. V7-sport (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- (We had this already) Der Spiegel does not claim copyright for these images they are all over the media and the internet and "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." IQinn (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Stating, over and over, that "Der Spiegel has not claimed copyright for the image" is patently false. It is as follows "© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011 Alle Rechte vorbehalten Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet GmbH. © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011 All rights reserved Reproduction only with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH. The link above gives you licensing information. A free version will be yours soon enough when it comes out in the courts-martial. V7-sport (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I've shown that they claim copyright when I posted the licensing information. V7-sport (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is wrong. "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." IQinn (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
This is now the third page where you have been exchanging these same arguments, and it's going in circles. Please at least keep it together in one page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
uploading a movie poster
hello, I need to upload a movie poster. I received it from the movie's production. What should I do to upload it to the movie's page? Do I need a license or written permission to publish? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acee.la (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Upload it as described at Wikipedia:Uploading images, and use it by inserting the file name in the image parameter of the infobox. See Help:Filesfor more information on uploading and using files. —teb728 t c 22:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Tag it with {{non-free poster}}, and use {{film poster fur}} to provide a non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 22:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Permission of free use
Hi, currently I'm working on Jeff Seeney and Next Queensland State Election, of both which require the picture of this Jeff Seeney individual, who is a politician. I emailed his office and his staff emailed me 2 pictures with permission of free use. How do I translate these two pictures into the relevant articles? Thankyou! Dengero (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:COPYREQ for what permission is needed and how the copyright owner can convey that permission to Wikipedia. (Permission for use only on Wikipedia is not adequate.) —teb728 t c 06:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) To be sure you understand: when we talk about "free use" here, we mean "free of restriction" not "free of cost". —teb728 t c 07:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Copy of Scholarpedia article
Hello, is it possible to copy completely Scholarpedia article. In fact, I am interesting by this article which could complete our article. So, I would to know if WP licence and Scholarpedia licence are compatible? Thanks. Pamputt (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, according to the license on the article the article is licensed only to Scholarpedia; so Wikipedia has no right whatever to use it. —teb728 t c 09:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
rallykenya.com
A Site for Motor Sport Enthusiasts with a major focus on all motor sport events in Kenya and touching base on similar relating matters worldwide, this interactive, dynamic and highly informative website hosts a huge collection of applications including Rally Social Forum, Rally News, Rally Photos, Rally Videos, rally shop, rally document section and much more. www.rallykenya.com< — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinity.254 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a media copyright question here? If there is a suggestion that some images might be useful, most likely everything found there is copyright and we cannot use it. ww2censor (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Pushparaj Kulal
ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushparajkulal (talk • contribs) 09:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Wp50949693_0f.jpg
Hello,
Can you check image File:Wp50949693_0f.jpg now that I have amended the text?
Many thanks Mark Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinbych (talk • contribs) 11:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- The amended text helps but even though you state a source and also that there is permission, there is no verification of the permission nor the type of licence under which the copyright holder releases the image. We require a freely licenced image which means that anyone can use the image for anything and you need to have the copyright holder confirm their permission bu following the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION. I have added an information template and you should fill in the missing details too. BTW, the image title is rather useless, it is best to name image based on their content. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
question about peggy.jpg
I am brand new to wikipedia and am having a hard time finding out how to do some of the things.
I got a message that I needed to indicate the copyright information on an image I uploaded. How do I do that? I will confirm with the person whose picture it is, but I believe it is a personally owned picture from her own collection, with no copyright. How do I indicate that? And if it turns out I am incorrect, how do I label who owns the copyright? Basically, I guess I need to know how to edit image information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctaylor64 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Questions relating to how to add copyright information after the fact are so common, we have the answer at the top of the page. (also note, the upload form has a drop down menu for license, so when you upload, you can choose the license there. however, if you forget to do that when you upload, read the instructions at the top of the page). That said, the photo has a copyright. Under US law, all creative works are automatically copyrighted by their creator. So in this case, whoever took the photo, owns the copyright (unless it was a work for hire, say by a professional photographer, and the rights were transferred to the subject under contract). Did you take the photo yourself? If not, you really should not be uploading other's creative works without their expressed permission (or without concrete evidence the work has been licensed freely). So we either need an official website or something of the sort with a copyright notice, stating the corresponding free license, or you need to check out WP:PERMISSION and have the copyright holder (the photographer, not the subject, unless rights were transferred) e-mail us a declaration of consent (WP:CONSENT). I know this may all be a bit overwhelming, but we have a very strict policy on copyright and licensing, as we are the free encyclopedia, and we must ensure our content is licensed freely. Hope this helps. If you have any follow up questions at all, from how copyright and licensing works on Wikipedia, to how to edit an image page, feel free to ask, and I (or another volunteer) would be glad to assist you. Good luck. -Andrew c [talk] 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)