VernoWhitney (talk | contribs) |
VernoWhitney (talk | contribs) →Prince's signature and WP:NFCC#9: my take |
||
Line 543: | Line 543: | ||
Hey there WP:MCQ, [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] raised a legitimate concern on my bot's talk page. Here is the original message: <blockquote>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWeight&action=historysubmit&diff=367909063&oldid=367775858 This bot edit] doesn’t strike me as supportable. Per this, at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_(musician)&oldid=368061856#Stage_names Prince (musician)#Stage names,] the artist used that symbol as his ''legal name'' from 1993 through 2000 ''and also'' copyrighted it in 1997 because he had used it on the cover of one of his albums released in 1992. Accordingly, whether or not it is fair use to use the image depends on whether one is referring to ''the album'', or is referring to ''the artist'' as he was known during the 1993–2000 time frame. It would be nice if DASHBot could be told to seek human guidance instead of automatically deleting all use of this symbol in talk pages. I was referring to the artist [[File:Prince logo.svg|14px]] as he was legally known in the 1993–2000 time frame, in my post. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L|talk]]) 22:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)</blockquote> I'd like some comment from someone who is more knowledgeable of the fair use policy than I to help us out. Thanks, [[User:Tim1357|<font color="Blue" face="Arial" >Tim]]</font><font color="Red" face="Optima" >[[Special:Contributions/Tim1357|1357]]</font> <sup><font face="Times new roman" size = 2 >[[User talk:Tim1357|talk]]</font></sup> 22:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC) |
Hey there WP:MCQ, [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] raised a legitimate concern on my bot's talk page. Here is the original message: <blockquote>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWeight&action=historysubmit&diff=367909063&oldid=367775858 This bot edit] doesn’t strike me as supportable. Per this, at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_(musician)&oldid=368061856#Stage_names Prince (musician)#Stage names,] the artist used that symbol as his ''legal name'' from 1993 through 2000 ''and also'' copyrighted it in 1997 because he had used it on the cover of one of his albums released in 1992. Accordingly, whether or not it is fair use to use the image depends on whether one is referring to ''the album'', or is referring to ''the artist'' as he was known during the 1993–2000 time frame. It would be nice if DASHBot could be told to seek human guidance instead of automatically deleting all use of this symbol in talk pages. I was referring to the artist [[File:Prince logo.svg|14px]] as he was legally known in the 1993–2000 time frame, in my post. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L|talk]]) 22:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)</blockquote> I'd like some comment from someone who is more knowledgeable of the fair use policy than I to help us out. Thanks, [[User:Tim1357|<font color="Blue" face="Arial" >Tim]]</font><font color="Red" face="Optima" >[[Special:Contributions/Tim1357|1357]]</font> <sup><font face="Times new roman" size = 2 >[[User talk:Tim1357|talk]]</font></sup> 22:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:To sum up the discussion at [[commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 6#Image:Prince symbol album.svg and Image:Prince symbol.svg]]: since he actually had it copyrighted it's copyrighted until a legal body finds otherwise. Given that for now at least it is copyrighted, it can't be used outside of article space per the non-free content policy. I also don't see a cite supporting the article's claim that "free use of the symbol depends in part on whether one is referring to the album, or the artist", but I'm inclined to think that it would be ''fair'' use, not free use. [[User:VernoWhitney|VernoWhitney]] ([[User talk:VernoWhitney|talk]]) 23:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
<!--The following is to keep DASHBot away while this is being discussed--> |
<!--The following is to keep DASHBot away while this is being discussed--> |
||
Revision as of 23:20, 15 June 2010
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. |
Images Uploaded without My Permission!!!
Hi! To my horror, I have discovered that the following images created by me were uploaded without my express permission. I can provide proof of ownership by showing larger, uncropped, watermarked copies, but I need these images removed, as I never agreed to release them into the public domain!
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chuck_Palahniuk_Roses_and_Shit_Tour_2006.jpg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chuck_Palahniuk_Roses_and_Shit_Tour_2006.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Turner_Aug_26_2005.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_orpheum_2005.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_Northbound_Sep_15_2005.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_Southbound_Aug_21_2005.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_porno_2005.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_book_company_2005.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_businesses_2_2005.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_vogue_2_2005.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_gentrification_2005.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_movieland_arcade_sign_2005.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zenkoji_Temple_June_27_2007.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zenkoji_Temple_Niomon_June_27_2007.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zenkoji_Temple_Bodhisattvas_June_27_2007.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zenkoji_Temple_Sanmon_Renovation_Poster_June_27_2007.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zenkoji_Temple_Sanmon_Renovation_Schematic_June_27_2007.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zenkoji_Temple_Kyozo_June_27_2007.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zenkoji_Temple_Incense_Burner_June_27_2007.jpg
Please contact me at <redacted> for proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.95.193 (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note this IP is claiming to be indef blocked user User:NeoThe1. --Yankees76 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you are in NeoThe1, then I'll note that at least some of those images were uploaded and licensed as they are by you, so as far as I'm aware they are out of your control now. I haven't looked at all of them, but that's my initial comment. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have completed my review and all of them were definitively uploaded and licensed for any use by NeoThe1, except possibly commons:File:Chuck Palahniuk Roses and Shit Tour 2006.jpg which I believe would require a Wikipedia admin to confirm. As I previously said, I believe the attribution license is non-revocable, but if you are not NeoThe1 and they did not have the right to release the images or if you otherwise believe there is a copyright issue which requires that the images be removed, you should send an email following the steps listed at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you are in NeoThe1, then I'll note that at least some of those images were uploaded and licensed as they are by you, so as far as I'm aware they are out of your control now. I haven't looked at all of them, but that's my initial comment. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I am an admin and an OTRS agent, and can help clear this matter up with you. I'm a little concerned because above you say, I have discovered that the following images created by me were uploaded without my express permission. but then you also say I am the original creator of the image (user NeoThe1). I own the copyright. I do not permit it to be used So what is the case? Were the images uploaded without your permission, or are you the original creatore User:NeoThe1? And have you just changed your mind a couple years after you uploaded them as User:NeoThe1? We need to get to the bottom of your conflicting statements. Then we can proceed confirming your identity as original copyright holder via e-mail. Thanks! -Andrew c [talk] 16:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- FYI — on his now-deleted userpage, NeoThe1 stated that his name was "Michael G. Khmelnitsky"; consequently, please don't delete these under F4 simply because they're credited to Michael G. K. as a source. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. a) The images *were* created by me. I can prove it. b) The images were *not* uploaded by me, but by my girlfriend, who also used my account to edit Wikipedia years ago, before we separated. The images were cropped and resized incorrectly, and attributed incorrectly. For one thing, I *never* wanted my website to be referenced. c) I *do* own the copyright to the images, and I never signed it away. Please work with me to resolve this.204.50.113.43 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, so now I'm curious for some input from other copyright gurus and/or OTRS people. Two questions.
- CC licenses are explicitly non-revocable. My gut feeling is that PD or other general licensing is non-revocable for the same general reasons (see also a court ruling from last year). Are there any other takes on licensing revocation?
- Even if he verifies that he's the owner of the account, there's no way to verify who used the account to upload the files. When it comes to vandalism/blocking it doesn't matter and the account is penalized regardless, but when it comes to copyrights it's possible that a different person used the account who actually didn't have the right to license these as they are (as appears to be the case here), but without proof how is this handled given that there are legal aspects involved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VernoWhitney (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Is the exgirlfriend available to send in an affidavit that says that she "released" items that she did not have permission to do? (note she may want to talk to a lawyer herself before she signs such an affadavit!) Active Banana (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, at wikipedia, we may not offer legal help. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Is the exgirlfriend available to send in an affidavit that says that she "released" items that she did not have permission to do? (note she may want to talk to a lawyer herself before she signs such an affadavit!) Active Banana (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, so now I'm curious for some input from other copyright gurus and/or OTRS people. Two questions.
The law in this case is very simple, and nothing really to do with copyright. You cannot give better title to something than the title you hold. If I don't own something, I cannot pass on the title to it. This applies if I try to sell you a stolen watch, or if I try to grant a license to a copyright I do not hold. In this case, Wikipedia's policies about accounts is of no relevance. The issue is if the person doing the uploading had title to the goods. If the original poster were able to prove via OTRS that he held the copyright, the safe course of action would be to take the images down, as use of a Wikipedia account would probably not be sufficient evidence of who it was who had done the uploading. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
- File:Aldo Moro br.jpg — Aldo Moro, photographed during his kidnapping by the Red Brigades.
- File:MarmaraBoarding0427.PNG — Screenshot from MV Mavi Marmara's own video footage.
Aldo Moro's picture taken in captivity is in the public domain due to the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio. Under the same logic this video footage should be in the public domain, though the inline captions are probably copyrighted. Is it safe to assume captionless screenshots from this videoclip, like File:MarmaraBoarding0427.PNG, are in the public domain? ליאור (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not at all an expert in the field, but since it's hotly debated whose fault it really was, claiming it under PD for that reason could open a can of worms regarding the Israel Palestine dispute. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- (EC)I don't think so for two main reasons. First, the image you are comparing to specifically refers to Italian law. The image you want to claim is PD does not appear to be under the jurisdiction of Italy. What jurisdiction applies, and what laws specifically are comparable? Furthermore, I don't see what crime is being perpetrated by the image (this isn't a kidnapping). How specifically do you believe Ex turpi causa non oritur actio applies (assuming the jurisdiction governing this image has a comparable law). Excuse me if my ignorance of the situation doesn't let me see the significance of this image, so you'll have to spell it out for me.-Andrew c [talk] 22:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio (or the related U.S. doctine of unclean hands) can be used as a justification to claim File:MarmaraBoarding0427.PNG is in the public domain. The pubic domain status of the image commons:File:Aldo_Moro_br.jpg relies on an Italian law that denies criminals certain rights (in this case copyright) if they are generated while committing a crime. Technically, ex turpi causa non oritur actio and unclean hands are defenses one might raise as a defendant in a lawsuit, much like one might claim fair use as defense in a copyright infringement lawsuit. The ability to raise a defense is not a good analogy to the case with the photo of Aldo Moro. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the photo of Aldo Moro was actually an instrumentality in a crime, in that it was used to extort the Italian government, while this footage is largely incidental to any crime that may have occurred. Even if we could untangle which country's copyright law applied to this footage (security camera footage captured in international waters from a Comoros-flagged ship owned by a Turkish NGO while confronting a maritime blockade of Gaza, argh!), and that country had a legal principle similar to the case in Italian law, the Wikimedia Foundation would have to be able to argue that the footage was taken by the ship's owners while they were committing a crime. I don't think we'd want to open that can of worms, even if we conceivably could. —RP88 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
What about videos of captured soldiers?
Thank you for your thoughtful clarifications regarding the legal mess concerning File:MarmaraBoarding0427.PNG. Wikimedia Israel is currently trying to ammend the Israeli Copyright law, releasing works of the Israeli Government to the public domain. If successful, this ammendment will enable us to upload plenty of valuable media, including that covering the flotilla incident.
I now have another question regarding photos and videoclips of two captured Israeli soldiers, taken by militant organizations as a measure of extortion:
- Ron Arad - The second video from the left here was taken by Amal militants in Lebanon while holding him hostage.
- Gilad Shalit - This video was taken by Hamas militants in the Gaza strip while holding him hostage.
What Copyright law is applicable for each of these videos? Could the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio be used to claim any of these videos is in the public domain? Thanks again, ליאור (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you know that that legal doctrine or a similar one applies to any of the countries/parties involved? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- As to whether the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio can be used to claim that either of these videos is in the public domain, the answer is no. Even if it applies to these works, the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a defense that one might raise as a defendant, it doesn't deny copyright to the work's creator. However, It might be reasonable to refer to this doctrine if you use the image in accordance with WP:NFCC. For example, in your non-free use rationale you might allude to ex turpi causa non oritur actio as the reason that our use does not compete with the copyright holder's ability to use the work commercially (i.e. to enforce the copyright the copyright holder would first have to be willing to admit to conspiracy in a crime, and even if he did so, in jurisdictions where this doctrine applies a court would presumably be less likely to grant damages to the copyright holder for unauthorized use of his work).
- As to what copyright law is applicable to each of those videos, my opinion is that Lebanonese copyright law applies to the Ron Arad video, assuming the photographer is a permanent resident of Lebanon. As to the Gilad Shalit video, I think that is a more complicated case. Whose copyright law applies to the residents of the Gaza strip ultimately comes down to the legal status of Gaza, and since this status is still in dispute, I think its probably best to assume the Gilad Shalit is non-free content an use it in accordance with WP:NFCC. —RP88 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia use only
Just out of interest this image File:Pat-Burrell.jpg has a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License but the permission text says Permission is granted by the author Scott Ableman to use this photo on Wikipedia under a CC-2.5. we have a few images uploaded from the same source. Can you restrict use to wikipedia but have a cc attribution licence? (the original source at flikr has a by-nc-nd licence) thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 and ...on Wikipedia... and Any other use requires permission from the author... are in conflict. The image has been tagged for deletion as having an incompatible license. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Ukexpat, the licensing of this image looks to be in a confused state, the "on Wikipedia" restriction is inconsistent with the claimed CC-BY-2.5 license. Looking at the revision history of File:Pat-Burrell.jpg, it appears that earlier today Ww2censor tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#F3, then Nyttend deleted the file, restored it, and removed the CSD tag. I'll list it at WP:PUF where it can obtain a more considered review. —RP88 (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- The PUF listing is here for those who wish to discuss this. —RP88 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe the uploader should be notified of the specifics of the problem so they can decide whether they want it to be deleted or correct the permission to simply be CC-BY-2.5 ? Per the logs they're the same person so they could go through the formal OTRS process this time if they want to leave the file up. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- The PUF listing is here for those who wish to discuss this. —RP88 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed I did because there is no good evidence that permission was ever received other than a say-so. The source licence is still different that on the file page and that needs to be clarified, otherwise we have to err on the side of caution and delete it. The PUF at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 4#File:Pat-Burrell.jpg is the best way to go. ww2censor (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- A few more images with the same problem and also make the same claim:
- File:Larry Young.jpg
- File:Face Off.jpg
- File:Phil Garner.jpg
- File:Ryan Zimmerman.jpg
- File:Alex Escobar.jpg
- File:Baseball slide.jpg
- File:Presidents Race.jpg
- File:Ray King.jpg
- File:Matt Chico.jpg
- File:Pete Orr.jpg
File:Jim-Dale.JPG (by-nd/2.0 on Flikr)File:Austin-Kearns.jpg (by-nd/2.0 on Flikr)File:Bill-Bray.jpg (by-nd/2.0 on Flikr)File:Ryan-Zimmerman.jpg (by-nd/2.0 on Flikr)File:Nick-Johnson.jpg (by-nd/2.0 on Flikr)File:Washington-Nationals-Presidents-Race-Teddy-Roosevelt.jpg (by-nc-nd/2.0)
I have not checked all the users uploads, can the be added to the PUF or will they need some other action? MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- We also have a dervied vesion at File:Pat-Burrell-crop.jpg. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Understand the uploader is the flikr account so I have struck the ones where he has changed the license, the others still says wikipedia use only. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- And "CC-2.5" isn't sufficient license anyway; there are several CC-2.5 licenses which we don't accept. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Don't we still need OTRS permission and not just an admin's word that they're the same person in order to accept even the struck-out images? VernoWhitney (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Use of photographic portrait taken in 1909
I wanted a photograph for George Henry Livens, his grandson is also a professor at Manchester and has sent me a scan of a photograph of Livens from 1909 which he owns and is happy for it to be used in any way that is helpful. The photographer is unknown, given the date and pose was probably professional and (long since dead). Can we assume the Livens family own the rights to the photo? If so what copyright tag can we use?. Billlion (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Has it been published (with notice, in those periods that required notice on publication)?
- If it's unpublished, or was not first-published prior to 2003, its copyright expired at the latest in 2002.
- If it was first-published between 1978 and 2002, it's under copyright through 2047.
- If it was first-published prior to 1978, its copyright will have been 28 (or, if renewed, 95) years from publication. You can't determine the date of expiration without knowing the year of first publication. TJRC (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- TJRC is right when he says we need to know if the photo has ever been previously published and the circumstance under which it was published to determine the copyright status of this photo. However I think he's wrong in some of his details, most particularly, the copyright term for this document if it's never been published and never registered with the copyright office. Unpublished and unregistered works when the death date of the author is not known have a copyright term of 120 years from date of creation. A work created in 1909 that meets these criteria will enter the public domain on January 1, 2030. The same term applies if was never published or registered and the author is anonymous. If you can track down the identify of the photographer, and this photo has never been been published and never registered, the copyright term is the life of the author plus 70 years, so if you can identify the photographer, and he died before 1940, this photo is in the public domain. —RP88 (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Public Domain Confirmation
Have received confirmation from state agency that their images are in Public Domain. Read direction on WP:PERMISSIONS page that outlines how to submit confirmation for review. It says to send confirmation to: "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org". Does that mean: "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" or "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" or something else.... In any case, I can't find live e-mail address. Have already spent lot of time getting confirmation, but now I'm lost. Really need some help!--Orygun (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- permissions-commons@wikimedia.org should be the one. You can contact me on commons if you need any further assistance regarding uploads to wikimedia commons (you are now on wikipedia). Deadstar (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Original source information needed for File:Rabbi Scheinberg at a Bris Mila.jpg
The information at commons for File:Rabbi Scheinberg at a Bris Mila edit.jpg refers to an original file which is not available anymore. Can someone check the (licensing and any other) information for the now deleted original file and perhaps even restore/upload it to Commons so both files are available for use in the future. Thanks. Deadstar (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The text in the info is the text from the original file. The license is the same as well. That said, it isn't clear why the image was deleted on en.wiki. An admin uploaded it and then deleted it, saying "delete own photo" or something like that. Furthermore, there is no image in the deleted page history. So either it was an error upload, or the image was oversighted, or something is up with the server/my access. It's all a bit odd. -Andrew c [talk] 13:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The admin who uploaded and then a month later deleted the File:Rabbi Scheinberg at a Bris Mila.jpg image also switched the image on Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg to File:Rabbi Scheinberg at a Bris Mila edit.jpg just before deleting the old image, following the edit (whatever that may have been). It's likely he deleted it as obsolete, without thinking about preserving the licensing history. —RP88 (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. I have updated the image with a little more info. I'll paste this into the discussion page in case there's any future queries. (I also just found User_talk:Crzrussian/Archive_9 which mentions that Fir002 did three possible edits of the disappeared file, so not sure what is going on.) Closing this anyway. Thanks again. Kind regards, Deadstar (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Rear Admiral Nigel Coates of the Royal Australian Navy died on 2 June 2010; his funeral is on 9 June 2010.[1]
An official image of him as Commander Australian Fleet, taken on 17 October 2008, is being used extensively for matters related to the funeral. It also features covering the front page of the edition of the RAN's newspaper. (Defence copyright statement)
Can that image, or the image of the front page of the newspaper, or the mock-up of several images of him used on the RAN website and in the newspaper, now be used on his Wikipedia page? If so, which is preferable? What are the grounds, if not "fair use"?
- ^ Navy Mourns Tragic Loss of RADM Nigel Coates, Navy News, 7 June 2010, accessed 8 June 2010
- Peter Ellis - Talk 13:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, I do not think you can use that image. Unlike the works of the US government, this image is not in the public domain. Works of the Australian government are covered by Australian Commonwealth copyright. Commonwealth copyright expires 50 years from the date of creation (rounded up to the nearest year), as such, this image will be covered by copyright until January 1, 2059. You also can't use it as non-free content, as it fails WP:NFCC#1 "No free equivalent" due to the existence of this image on Commons. —RP88 (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Potential problems
In a peer review, it was brought up that two of the photos could have copyright problems. Both have somewhat strange situations. Would a scale model in a museum be considered a work of art? I know that there was a previous discussion about a model in the UK and an exception was found for models of buildings in public places, but what about in the US? Also, what would the copyright of a photo that was taken in 1866 and whose author is unknown, but probably was not published (as it was kept in a museum archive) until 1972 in a book? Niagara Don't give up the ship 17:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- UK copyright law specifically includes 3d models in its Freedom of Panorama equivalent. The US does not, regardless of where the model is. If the image was first published in the US in 1972, then that is when copyright would start to run, provided it was published with a copyright notice. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Margaret Court photo status
Just checking in with the status of File:Margaret Court.jpg. Since sending the email correspondence to wikipedia as required I have heard nothing and I wanted to make sure that when June 11 came along no deletion would happen. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is an OTRS pending notice on the image and that is not always a speedy process, so just be patient, it may take 7-10 days. You won't hear anything if all is well and the file will have an OTRS ticket attached. ww2censor (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Lost in traffic
Kindly review my question posted above. Thanks, ליאור (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The Image of the "TROJAN HORSE OF TROY"
I surely hope that you can help me. I need to upload the image of the Trojan Horse of Troy to my FACEBOOK page to discuss this article with my internet friends. Can you help me do this? Many thanks
Lewis W. Tilley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.166.26 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- This page is for copyright questions, if you need assistance using Wikipedia you should ask your question at Wikipedia:Help_desk. You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for some recommendations and guidelines on using Wikipedia content in your own work. —RP88 (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
What more is needed?
I received this message about an image I uploaded - "Thank you for uploading Image:Talune.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status....etc etc etc"
The page concerned states :
== Summary == This image was made in New Zealand more than fifty years ago - the copyright has expired and the image is now in the public domain. == Licensing == {{PD-NZ}}
This seems to me to be the relevant information. What else is needed here? Pinot (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- It appears you are referring to a two year old notice. The licencing seems fine and was added by another user the same day you uploaded it. However a full information template should be filled in with better details. ww2censor (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- From the edit history of Image:Talune.jpg, it appears Polly edited the image description after the bot notified you of the problems with the file. I've added an {{Information}} template to the image description, please fill out the fields with any information you have as there is lots of missing information. I'm happy to help out, but we'll definitely need more information from you. First, where did you obtain this image? Second, do you know the date it was created and/or the identify of the photographer? There currently isn't a description of the photo, can you provide us with a description (I notice that on SS Talune the image is used with the caption "SS Talune in Port Chalmers graving dock, c. 1890s"). —RP88 (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Author Photo
Dear experts,
I have a question about uploading a photo for an article about an author. I contacted the author, who told me that I could use the standard author photo that he provides to all websites or media that request it, as long as I credit the author and provide a web link back to the source from which it was obtained. Do I need the author to write to an authority at Wikipedia confirming his permission? Also, which tags do I use in the "summary" and which option do I select in the "licensing" menu when I am uploading the photo?
Thanks so much for your help!
Martinjonson (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- You need them to follow the procedure at WP:PERMISSION so long as they release the image under a free licence. You may also want to read donating copyrighted materials. ww2censor (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Two silly questions
I searched the archives and only found this thread that is relevant, but I was wondering if anyone could more thoroughly answer two (admittedly asinine) questions:
- I take a picture on someone else's camera. I own the copyright of that image, but s/he has the file. Am I right in thinking that, technically, that individual cannot copy the image to his/her computer without my permission?
- A friend takes a picture of me, for me. Does this count as works for hire or does s/he own it until s/he says "No, it's yours?"
The latter would seem to imply massive copyright violations on Facebook that, of course, don't matter one iota. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're pretty much correct as far as I know, because digital cameras store their images on internal memory which counts as the publishing required to acquire copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Puerto Rico NRHP photos
I am refered to here, for assistance/logging to deal with copyright issues for a number of photos uploaded recently and previously in Puerto Rico NRHP list-articles and separate articles, indexed via List of RHPs in PR. These include the following nine (and more):
- File:Church of San Isidro Labrador and Santa Maria de la Cabeza of Sabana Grande.JPG
- File:Church of San Fernando of Carolina.JPG
- File:Church Nuestra Senora del Rosario of Naguabo.JPG
- File:Church Nuestra Senora del Carmen of Hatillo.JPG
- File:Church Nuestra Senora de la Concepcion y San Fernando of Toa Alta.JPG
- File:Church Nuestra Senora de la Candelaria y San Matias of Manati.JPG
- File:Church Nuestra Senora de la Asuncion of Cayey.JPG
- File:Church Inmaculada Conception of Vega Alta.JPG
- File:Church Dulce Nombre de Jesus of Humacao.JPG
I posted this first here, and was advised "If you know the sources and they clearly state all rights reserved (or are not on a government site), then they should be tagged for WP:CSD#F9, if you don't know the source, then they should be listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)", and the mention there at Copyright Problems was deleted this edit removing it. The photos are in fact presented in NPS Focus system as "All rights reserved". However, in discussion at User talk:Quazgaa#copyright violation for 1 or more NRHP photos, Quazgaa states he/she is now going to seek more info and/or release from the Puerto Rico SHPO office for these photos. I don't think that will be successful for all of them, but it could possibly yield public release of some of them. I could do exactly as VernoWhitney suggested, and tag each of these 9 files individually, but in fact it's a bigger problem, there are more files uploaded than listed so far.
Can experts here possibly monitor, and chime in on, ongoing discussion at User talk:Quazgaa#copyright violation for 1 or more NRHP photos? I was wondering maybe this should be revisited in 10 days, but i see there is already some further comment there, a reported consultation with someone believed to be an authority. I replied that i think they don't have the correct info. Thanks in advance for your help. --doncram (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Please can you tell me how can I add this...
Hi, I uploaded a photo which was taken by me and therefore I own the copyright. Please can you tell me how can I add this as a detail to a photo I uploaded that has been flagged for copyright? Thankyou! David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudey cool240 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Please can you tell me how I can copyright reference as my own the above file? It has been listed as copyright unknown, however I took this photo and I own the copyright.
Please can you tell me how to proceed, Thankyou! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudey cool240 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just like the notice on your talk page tells you, you need to add a copyright tag to the image indicating under what licence it is released. Because you state that it is your own work, you may want to add the {{PD-self}} template to the file as well as filling out the missing details in the information template I added to the file. ww2censor (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Benelli photos
I want to use some of the images found here. Their usage page is here. It says "Please note that Benelli USA Corporation owns all copyrights to the images, but grants you the right to use the images for editorial or advertising purposes." Would this website count as "editorial"? If not, what would be an appropriate way to ask permission to use the images? I'm pretty sure they'd be happy to let us use them, but the our people are generally pretty anal about copyright and whatnot. Would an email to the representative be appropriate? How would I go about posting that here? I'm bad at the whole "fair use discussion" game and its formatting. Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- This question raises a number of issues. The first thing we need to know is which ones you want to use and for what purpose? "Editorial or advertising purposes" are not acceptable uses under wikipedia policy but generally when a logo is used in the infobox of a company's own article it is acceptable under fair-use, so long as the image complies with all 10 non-free content criteria. However some of these logos are composed of simple text and graphics that the {{PD-textlogo}} copyright tag may apply though such images may also still require a {{trademark}} template per this image. ww2censor (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Couldn't we just email them for permission? What would be a good way to word it? Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but they are unlikely to give you permission, however, if you want, you can follow the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION. ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- So basically they have to release their work under a new license in order for us to use it at all? There's no "we give wikipedia permission to use it" form? Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Further thought: that seems a bit silly. Would adding a line like "Usage Rights - Non-profit Encyclopedias: The images below constitute Benelli photos. Please note that Benelli USA Corporation owns all copyrights to the images, but grants you the right to use the images for encyclopedic purposes" to their terms of usage be good enough? I'm just hoping there's a way for us to get the images on here (which I'm pretty sure they'd be fine with; a flattering or high-res photo rather than some washed-out shot is a great way for them to make the guns look better), but still retaining copyrights (which I'm pretty sure is even higher up on their priorities list). Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're correct that there's no applicable Wikipedia-only licence. And your suggested disclaimer won't work either. Basically, as noted above for the logos, you might be able to make a fair use claim (per WP:NFC), or a public domain claim (due to lack of originality in the composition of the logos). But for the product images, etc. (and the logos if other options fail), you'll need them to release the images under a free licence, because it's unlikely that all of the non-free content criteria apply to them. TheFeds 02:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- So the only way to get their photos onto here is to ask them to release them under that license? Is there another, more restrictive license that we could use? I want to ask for as little as possible by way of concessions. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Any of the licences here could work, but the sample procedure at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries is convenient, because the text of Wikipedia is already covered by those licences (so it simplifies re-use). None of those licences are particularly restrictive—because to qualify as "free" in this sense, they all need to allow derivative works and commercial use. If you don't think they'll accept a free licence, then there isn't really that much we can do about it. There exist some less-free licences, but they aren't suitable for use on this site (for reasons of Wikipedia policy, not law).
On the other hand, given that these are promotional images, they might be interested in letting the images be used without restriction to expand the scope of their marketing efforts—in which case a CC0 waiver is the way to go. You could always suggest that, and send them the declaration of consent, with CC0 instead of a free licence, and see what they think. TheFeds 07:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyright
What copyright license applies to the pictures in [1]? Especially the monk in white, and guy with moustache [2]? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majuru (talk • contribs) 17:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Most likely, they will be in the public domain due to age (per U.S. law). But to be sure—because unfortunately, there are a number of possible complications—we could use a little more information. Who took the photographs, what was their citizenship, when did they die (if applicable), and who last owned the copyright? Where and when were the photos taken, and where and when were they first published? If published in the U.S., was there a copyright notice, and was the copyright ever renewed? If some of that information is unavailable, we can see what we can do with what's known.
- For example, what if the photo was taken in 1913 by an American who died in 1975, and was never published until 1980, and that publication took place in the U.S. with a copyright notice? Then the American copyright could still be in force...until 2045. On the other hand, there are plenty of scenarios that would make the photographs public domain. (And that's to say nothing of the independent Albanian copyright that may exist if the photographer was an Albanian citizen or permanent resident.) We'll need a bit more information to figure this out—and unfortunately, we need some sort of reliable assurance of the first publication (not just any publication) to make a determination for a large number of cases.
- With regards to Bektashi holy man, 1913 (A. Kahn Museum, Paris), this photograph is from the collection of Albert Kahn. As a wealthy banker, he sent photographers all over the world to take photos for his collection. His collection is currently held by Musée Albert-Kahn. Works published in the U.S. before 1923 are in the public domain, however all we know about this photo is that it was created in 1913, not that it was published before 1923. The vast majority of Albert Kahn's collection remains unpublished and those that have been published have generally been published fairly recently. As such we're going to need the identity and date of death of the copyright holder to determine the copyright status of this photo. If we assume that this photo was a work for hire (and that is not entirely certain) and that this photo was first published after January 1, 1978, then its copyright will expire on January 1, 2011, 70 years after Albert Kahn's death in 1940 (copyright runs through the end of the calendar year in which it would otherwise expire). —RP88 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Incorporating album covers into artist's page
Hi. I want to incorporate non-free album covers into the discograpy section of this artist's page. Is it possible? Thank you. Bekiroflaz (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's not; we don't allow non-free images to be used in discographies (see WP:NFC) as they violate our non-free content criteria. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Bekiroflaz (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Masem is correct. Thank you for asking!!! --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Bekiroflaz (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Picture Question
I was told by one 'PhantomSteve' that I might need to talk to you guys about a little situation involving a sports team that doesn't exist anymore (and yet still remains due to some strange history involved). Anyways, here's the quote of mine that was originally found on this page here.
"Since I'm a little bit new here (I have been editing here from time to time), I have a little bit of a question before I request putting it on here. You see, I found a picture of the original Denver Nuggets' logo, but I found on a website that specializes in preserving sports logos (the website in question is right here). So the question is, what type of copyright is it (if any) before I request uploading it on to this server?"
Basically, since I was told that I apparently need to talk to the original team (you know, the one that doesn't exist anymore, yet still remains due to said strange history) in order to get this picture on here, I have no idea how to do that since almost everyone that's played on that team has died, and I doubt good ol' David Stern would agree to this, even if I somehow contacted him. So what should I do? - AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- As mentioned in the Benelli post a little further up this page, generally when a logo is used in the infobox of an organization's own article it is acceptable under fair-use, so long as the image complies with all 10 non-free content criteria and a fair-use rationale is fully completed preferably using the {{Non-free use rationale}} template. ww2censor (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- So in other words, the answer's no on the upload, huh? - AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, as stated above, you can probably use it in the infobox of an organization's own article if a fully completed {{Non-free use rationale}} is added and the image complies with all 10 non-free content criteria. ww2censor (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Lofty Large photo - is this usable?
I'd very much like to add a picture to the Lofty Large article I've created; however, I'm unsure of copyright/fair use issues. The pic I'd like to use can be seen [here]. This is a copy of a picture which can be found in Lofty Large's Memoirs (One Man's SAS, Kimber, 1987), which I have a copy of. I presume that the picture belonged to Large, possibly taken by one of his colleagues. It dates to Aden, 1966. Given that Large is dead (no opportunity for a free use pic to be obtained), that I've been unable to find a free pic anywhere, that he is the subject of the article, that there aren't any commercial use conflicts that I can see, that the pic is of an encyclopedic nature, i.e. not defamatory or at all inapproprriate, would it be acceptable to upload this as fair use? I'm afraid whenever I try to get my head round the various image/fair use policies I end up having nose bleeds and panic attacks.
Any help would be appreciated. Arthur Holland (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- :) First, yes, it would be acceptable fair use. Creating a free license image of him is out of the question, as he is dead as you note. There might be a possibility of obtaining release under a free license, but we draw the line at dead/alive. So, yes, you can upload the image. The question then becomes how to tag. I would use {{Non-free fair use in|Lofty Large}}, and then follow WP:FURG to supply a rationale. If you need help after uploading, let us know. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks - that's hugely appreciated. I've done as you suggested, but if I've messed up in any way, please let me know. Arthur Holland (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Screen Capture of a video
I have done some research and have started drafting a new Wikipedia article. I found a video clip at the following location - http://www.archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.32456
I would like to take a screen shot of the video and use the picture on my new Wikipedia article. TnCom (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Is this OK with regards to copyright issues?
- If it is OK, what copyright license would it be?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by TnCom (talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, as a work of the U.S. government, this video is in the public domain, and as such screen shots from it may be tagged with the {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} image copyright tag. If you look at the video's description at archive.org you can see the phrase "ARC Identifier 32456". This is referring to the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration's Archival Research Catalog. If you look up identifier 32456 in ARC you can see the official records for this Army video, including the fact that it is in the public domain. —RP88 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyright status of uploaded image
I have uploaded Fc Scientific.jpg to use it in the Software calculator article, and on first try I omitted the copyright status. I have uploaded a new copy using the Upload new version of the file and added copyright/licensing information, but it did not replace the original version, so it is still showing as NoCopyrightInformation.
How can I delete the first copy? I want to give the uploaded file the same information as FC Arithmetic.jpg. If the simplest thing is for an administrator to delete it, then please do so and I will upload it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcalculators (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- The problem here is that all though there is a license to freely use the screendump in online or printed form, it is not the same as the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, and some rights are not granted, say for example to use it in a film, or to make a derivative of it. So it may better for formulacalculator to release the screen dump under public domain or a cc-0 license. Otherwise we have to use it under fair use, and it may in fact be replaceable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- You now have a week to supply a reason for fair use, or change the original license grant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyright status of a diagram in a book published after the original copyright had expired
I have a book written in 2000 about William Stanley (inventor) - clearly the book is copyrighted from 2000.
However, in the book are photographs, diagrams, catalogue pages, etc which are from the 1880s, 1890s and 1900s - if I had the original source in front of me, the copyright would have expired (i.e they were published 90-130 years ago. The most recent one is from 1909!
Is the copyright in the pictures etc based on the original publication dates (in which case they could be used as Public Domain), or 2000 when the book which incorporated them was written?
Any advice would be most welcome! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Once they're in the public domain they can't be removed from it, so they're fine to use. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've got some scanning to get on with next week! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
What is the right license?
What is the right license to use when i uploaded a photo that I toked? Plase notify me on my talk page Wael.Mogherbi (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Responded on talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello all. I am in the midst of a second FAC on the above article, where questions have arisen regarding fair use of two images. The same two users have opposed both nominations, one with no rationale and another who I disagree with, with no one else commenting on the issue. I was hoping I could get some image regulars here to comment there, whether you think I am correct or not. The first image is File:Katsura-Matsuyama exhibition ad.png which the user thinks can be replaced by me redrawing it, so there is a free equivalent. I will gladly attempt to do so if it makes sense, but I don't think there is a copyrighted "image" at issue; the file is textual, that is what is copyrighted and copyrightable, so free equivalency doesn't enter into the matter. The second issue regards the FU image in the infobox verses another image I uploaded, and whether free equivalency is violated by the first because of the existence of the second. I don't believe they are equivalent, that they don't convey the same information. Please see the first FAC and the second (active) FAC, where I hope to get additional comments on these image issues.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- The advertisment seems like a clearcut case of an ad published in the US pre-1978 without a copyright notice so it could use the copyright tag {{PD-Pre1978}}, though as you say it is plain text so you could also possibly claim use under {{PD-text}}. I'll comment later in the other images. ww2censor (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- With regards to File:Katsura-Matsuyama exhibition ad.png, this image is PD, not non-free. I've updated the image description to correct this. With regards to File:Masako_Katsura—1954_Buenos_Aires.png, I believe the fair-use rationale and the commentary in Masako Katsura is probably sufficient to prevent the deletion of this image, but it's been my observation that featured articles are generally held to a higher standard. Featured articles are expected to exemplify Wikipedia's goal to be a free content encyclopedia, as such FA reviewers get pretty touchy about Featured Article candidates that lead off with a non-free image. Maybe they'll be amenable to a compromise -- try using the PD image File:Katsura,_Matsuyama_and_Greenleaf.Jpg in the infobox and File:Masako_Katsura—1954_Buenos_Aires.png in the section discussing the 1954 World Three-Cushion tournament. I'll place a comment at the current FAC for Masako Katsura. —RP88 (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- With regards to File:Katsura,_Matsuyama_and_Greenleaf.Jpg, this photo may, or may not, be PD. I've been trying for quite awhile now to find any source that indicates when this photo was first published. I haven't been able find find any indication that it was published before 1956, so it may not be PD-Japan. Now that I write this note, I notice that someone at Commons has also noticed this problem and nominated this photo for deletion at Commons (as Commons only accepts media that can be shown to be freely licensed or public domain). —RP88 (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Question
Hi. I wanted to upload this picture here to use on an article. http://www2.netdoor.com/~campbab/kong/kkfrank.jpg The problem is I'm not sure of the copyright. This was a sketch from a proposed King Kong film. The man who sketched it was Willis O'Brien. His late widow Darlyene supplied this picture (as well as others) to Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine back in the 1960's. Since then it has appeared in various publications as well as on various sites on the net (such as the link I supplied above). Is it possible to still upload the pciture even if I don't know who actually owns it anymore (if anyone owns it anymore) or should I play it safe and not bother?Giantdevilfish (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Can you track down exactly which issue of the Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine that this sketch was first published in back in the 1960's? The reason I ask, is that if you know that the issue of the magazine in which this sketch was first published lacked copyright notice, or that the copyright was not renewed in it's 28 year, then this sketch is now in the public domain. If you're sufficiently interested we can probably dtermine copyright status of this sketch with a little legwork. —RP88 (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- You'll have to give me some time to find the particular issue. But I can tell you this. Similar sketches were published in Famous Monsters of Filmland issue 39. They were from the same source so maybe that will be sufficent. That particular issue has a section devoted to the project called The 13 Faces of Frankenstein referring to the 13 sketches that O'brien did of the giant Frankenstein monster that King Kong was supposed to fight. Its on pages 58-60. The magazine was published in June of 1966. What's written in the actual article is this "Obie made 13 sketches reproduced here (as with his other drawings) thru the kind courtesy of Darlyne (Mrs. Willis) O'Brien"Giantdevilfish (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- I checked the copyright renewal records at copyright.gov, and it appears that while some issues of Famous Monsters of Filmland from the 1960's had their copyright renewed, most did not. If you can determine in which issue of the Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine the sketch was first published, and the date that issue was published, it won't be too difficult to check if that issue was one of the issues that had its copyright renewed. —RP88 (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Linking acrobat files
Hi, I am sure I am missing something obvious here, but when an acrobat file is linked, such as [3], we get a acrobat symbol, this is licensed elsewhere as non-free. Can some kind person explain what I am missing? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, there's some speculation at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Icons-mini-file acrobat.gif that it is likely PD-ineligible (and this is the actual file being used for the pdf links, per the Template:PDFlink documentation), so I imagine just like File:Volkswagen logo.svg, it is treated as non-free on Wikipedia until/unless there's support on commons for a presumption of PD. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Defunct high school music group -- non-free?
I found a picture of a high school music group posing along with the six awards they had won in Washington, D.C. on an online website. I refrained from uploading it seeing that pictures of living people are not qualified as non-free; however, the picture is the only one available (so I can't find one without a possible copyright restriction), one quarter of the team has graduated (so I can't personally reproduce a picture and release it into the public domain), and the awards are stashed away in the school, inaccessible to anyone (thus taking away the use of the photo).
What do you guys suggest me to do? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Forgot to link the image: File:Odyssee-harmony-jazz.jpg EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- What are you trying to illustrate? And is it possible to get the photographer to let us use it? It sounds like it will be difficult to come up with an acceptable fair use, the fact that you can't get the musicians and the trophies back together is not a good enough reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted and\or trademarked logo
Would the logo in the upper-left here qualify for fair-use if I state that it is trademarked and\or copyrighted and use a low resoultion? Please talkback me (via the link in my sig) if anyone responds as it seems from earlier entries that it may take a while. Thanks for your time! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·· 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Generally when a logo is used in the infobox of a company's own article it is acceptable under fair-use, so long as the image complies with all 10 non-free content criteria. However the logo is composed of simple text and graphics so that the {{PD-textlogo}} copyright tag may apply though such an image will likely still require a {{trademark}} template per this image. ww2censor (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, that's good - it really needs the pic. Thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·· 05:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Paul Legrand, with longish cites from an 1854 book1855 newspaper. OK?
I just reviewed Paul Legrand, per a request at Requests for feedback. I note a couple of longish quotes. The source is an 1854 book1855 newspaper, so I'm thinking PD, but it's not a US book, so I'm out of my depth. I also note the quotes are comfortable shorter than 300 words, but I also know that 300 words isn't really a safe harbor, so I'm looking for confirmation that everything is OK.--SPhilbrickT 02:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- What 1854 book are you talking about? The longish quotes are taken from 19th-century French newspapers--La Presse and Le Moniteur Universel--and their translations are taken from a 1985 book (which I wrote) called Pierrots on the Stage. I don't think their use violates copyright, but I'm not an expert. Beebuk 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beebuk (talk • contribs)
- You can ignore this note. I just think I figured out why my signature doesn't appear correctly on my posts, and am testing the correction here. Beebuk 03:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, so the 19th century newspapers are PD (at least under US law which is fine for Wikipedia, so I'm not going to bother checking other countries) and quoting directly from a PD source is allowed, it just needs to be attributed (which these are). Now this case is actually not that simple because it's a translation. The translation (unless performed by a machine) is a creative act and so the translator acquires a new copyright. I'm personally of the opinion that the quotes are too extensive to qualify under WP:NFC, but I haven't read the whole article yet to see how much context there is, just skimmed it, so I may be mistaken. If they are too extensive then they either need to be released under a free license, or trimmed.
- If the author of the book copied the text here or otherwise agrees to donate it then two things need to be verified through OTRS: 1) their identity and a statement of releasing the text and 2) that the author still holds the copyright to the text and not the publisher (look into the history of this CCI if you want to know what problems not verifying the 2nd point can lead to). VernoWhitney (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I support Verno's interpretation here; Beebuk, only you are in position to know your agreement with your publisher. As it says at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, "If you are the original author but the rights have been assigned to your publisher, you have given up the ability to license the work to us." If you think that might be the case, you'd be better off sticking comfortably within the "brief excerpts" allowance or retranslating the original content. If you have not assigned the rights to your publisher, you can provide permission for the translation to be licensed accordingly. (Sorry, but we do have to use external processes for this, since we don't have any means of verifying identity within Wikipedia; see WP:DCM, again.) Alternatively, it's best to either write a fresh translation or summarize and abbreviate the quotes. We not only try to conform to US fair use, but attempt to keep our material widely reusable even in countries that have less restrictive allowances. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have written to Princeton UP and asked about fair use. As a long-time academic writer, I feel pretty sure that the quotes are within permissible range, but I'll soon know for sure. Beebuk 10:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
What copyright info for press picture from website?
Hello,
I am not sure which copyright info to go with a picture from someone's press section on website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.144.158 (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- What image are you taking about? Please provide a URL to the page the image is on. Generally modern press or promotional images found on websites are copyright and will not be acceptable on Wikipedia. We need more information before we can advise you further. ww2censor (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair Use Of Television video clips
Greetings,
I am writing an e-book and would like to show video clips of television news reports within the pages of the book. Can I do that legally?
Thank you,
Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.17.243 (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody here is in a position to provide you with legal advice on how to comply with copyright issues related to your commercial venture. However, Wikipedia does maintain a page, WP:REUSE, which offers general advice for those who wish to reuse Wikipedia content in their own work. You might also consider talking a look at Wikipedia's sister project, the Wikimedia Commons. Commons is explicitly a collection of reusable media. Commons maintains a page of instructions intended for those who wish to reuse media from the Commons. —RP88 (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this image in the Public Domain?
I was wondering if this image is in the public domain: http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb6b69p2cz/?&brand=oac Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is from 1906, so yes. It should be tagged {{PD-1923}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I disagree with VernoWhitney, there is no evidence that it is {{PD-1923}}, but it may still be in the public domain. Works published before 1923 are PD in the US, but there is no indication that this photo was published before CDL put it online in 2007. This photo is credited to J. D. Givens. That is almost certainly a reference to James Davide Givens, a notable San Francisco photographer. He died in December, 1939. If the CDL was the first to publish this photo when it put it online in 2007, then the copyright for this photo expires 70 years after the death of author, which would be January 1, 2010 (so it would be {{PD-US}} and {{PD-old-70}}). However, if it was first published sometime between 1923 and 2002, then this image may well not be PD (we'll need details about how and when it was published to determine its status). If you upload this image, let me know, I'll help you tag it correctly. —RP88 (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies for providing incorrect information. I was following the precedent of File:Soldiers looting 1906 fire.jpg and File:San Fransisco Earthquake.jpg from the same source. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I disagree with VernoWhitney, there is no evidence that it is {{PD-1923}}, but it may still be in the public domain. Works published before 1923 are PD in the US, but there is no indication that this photo was published before CDL put it online in 2007. This photo is credited to J. D. Givens. That is almost certainly a reference to James Davide Givens, a notable San Francisco photographer. He died in December, 1939. If the CDL was the first to publish this photo when it put it online in 2007, then the copyright for this photo expires 70 years after the death of author, which would be January 1, 2010 (so it would be {{PD-US}} and {{PD-old-70}}). However, if it was first published sometime between 1923 and 2002, then this image may well not be PD (we'll need details about how and when it was published to determine its status). If you upload this image, let me know, I'll help you tag it correctly. —RP88 (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
So how do I create a copyright? I just uploaded my first photo and got a deletion notice.
The page: Craig_Peyer
I uploaded the photo and (in the comment section for the image) put the URL for the online 'zine where I got the photo.
As usual with Wikipedia, I clicked around & around wasting precious time reading & reading along the way, but I never found anything about how to create the copyright. If you answer this question please contact me somehow (on my "talk page"?) so that I don't embark on another wild-goose-click looking for your reply.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CousinJohn (talk • contribs) 19:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- © Copyright 2009 The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC right there where you got it; file deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
~Adding Photos~
I have been working on creating an article on the wikipedia page nl:johannes Evert Hendrik Akkeringa. He is an artist and I wanted to include a few images of his work. I have received permission from the author of a book to use the images she used in the book on the wikipedia page. I tried to upload them but they were deleted. The images would be credited to both the original artist and the book where the images came from. I want to figure out which liscense I need to use to upload them again. I looked at other artists on wikipedia, and their art is displayed.
Please let me know how to solve this. I am an autoconfirmed user and my article on Johannes_Evert_Hendrik_Akkeringa, has been in existance for 4 days.
Thank you, SdeClercq1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SdeClercq1 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- This page is for questions about media on the English language wikipedia, so you would be best to ask your questions on the Netherlands wiki. Perhaps starting here nl:Wikipedia:Auteursrechten because different languages have different rules. If the copyright holder is prepared to release the images under a free licence then you could upload them to the commons so everyone can use them, however, copyright of an artist's work is frequently still owned by them and not often freely given. ww2censor (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
File:145 Draza Mihajlovic.jpg
This file is under Wikipedia's policy for non-free content, and I am informed that it needs a rationale. Can you help me what rationale should I provide so that the image can be retained? PS I intend to put the image in the infobox of Draža Mihailović article. BoDu (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is already a freely licenced image in the infobox of this article, so your image would fail the non-free content criteria because it is replaceable, so a fair-use rationale you might write would not be acceptable. While the current image may not be as good quality as the one you are interested in using I think you will have to live with it, so unless you can prove the new image is free you cannot use it. ww2censor (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the quickly answer. BoDu (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Free-for-noncommercial template?
I've uploaded File:Lockington Covered Bridge.jpg with what I believe to be a valid fair use rationale. Some time ago, I contacted the organisation whose website hosts the image, asking if it were PD or otherwise available for commercial usage; in response, I was told that it was still under their copyright, but that they permitted noncommercial usage. Obviously a noncommercial permission isn't enough (unless it can be used fairly, such as here), but do we have a template saying that noncommercial is permitted by the copyright holder? I'd find such a template useful, since (at least in my mind) it bolsters the image's chances of passing WP:NFCC #2 — there's no chance of the image harming commercial opportunities if the copyright holder is happy to have us use it. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, media with a license that limits use to non-commercial use can be tagged with {{Non-free with NC}} in addition to the required non-free license tag and a fair use rationale. I've added it to the image for you. —RP88 (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Question about copyright status of image.
I want to use an image that is apparently in the public domain (it is a photograph taken by Nadar, a French 19th-century photographer who died in 1910; the photo is from the 1850s), but my source (on the internet) claims that it cannot be reproduced on the web since the source owns the copyright. The URL is: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.linternaute.com/musee/image_musee/540/56427_1291930240.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.linternaute.com/musee/diaporama/1/7183/musee-d-orsay/5/35508/paul-legrand--doublure-de-debureau/&usg=__x. I see that several Flicker sites feature the image.
Is it PD or not? And can I copy from the source? Beebuk 10:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean http://www.linternaute.com/musee/image_musee/540/56427_1291930240.jpg? Your Google image search isn't working for me. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- This image is from a page at L'Internaute Magazine. It's is a photograph of Paul Legrand taken by the French photographer Gaspard-Félix Tournachon. The page says it was taken c. 1855-1859 and currently resides in the collection of Musée d’Orsay. Gaspard-Félix Tournachon died in 1910, so this image can be tagged with {{PD-art-life-70}}. —RP88 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- This photo has a page in Musée d’Orsay's online catalog with more details about the photo (click image on page to zoom). —RP88 (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks for everyone's help. Beebuk 22:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Scatter plot copyright
This question was asked at WT:NFC, but this page appears to get more traffic so I'm posting it here: There is an image located in http://www-cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/pubs/voting-icwsm10.pdf but the data from which the image was produced is not provided. Is the plot creative enough to be copyrighted? VernoWhitney (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello:
I've been trying to upload the above mentioned picture and link it to [[4]] but it always seems to be deleted for a variety of reasons. I own this picture, am relinquishing all rights to it and, as far as I know, have followed the instructions to have it displayed on the 'David Libert" page. Can someone please help me with this? Thanks.
Regards,
David Libert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divilibil (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- David, I'd be happy to help you. I am going to assume you are attempting to add a photo of yourself to the David Libert article. The issue we need to resolve is who took this photograph of you? Were they a professional photographer? If so, we're likely going to need the permission of the photographer. Copyright to a photo is usually held by the photographer and not by the subject of the photo. This is true even if the subject paid the photographer to take the photo (although exceptions exist if the photographer is an actual employee of the subject and they took the photo in the course of their employment or if photographe signed a written transfer of copyright). Let me know if you have any questions. —RP88 (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Seeking permission to use Wiki screen capture
Hi. I'm a Technical Publications Manager for a multinational consulting engineering firm with approximately 25,000 employees. I want to write an internal communication for the entire company because we are finding many of our engineers and scientists, as well as our technical publications specialists, are using the Wiki as a primary reference source, which you yourselves discourage on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AResearching_with_Wikipedia
I would like to take a screen capture showing the URL and the top of the webpage (so, your logo), plus the "This page in a nutshell" box (and ending the capture at the bottom of the box) to emphasize to staff worldwide that while Wiki is a good place to start research, it should not be used as a primary reference. Of course, I don't want to violate your copyright in the process so would like your permission to use the screen capture.
Thanks very much for your help,
F FRubright (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You should contact the Wikimedia Foundation in St. Petersburg, FL. While our content is licensed for free use, the logos have their rights reserved. They would be able to advise you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Wehwalt, this page is maintained by the efforts of volunteers, no one here is likely to be in a position to offer you official permission to use Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) trademarks. If you need official permission you'll have to contact the WMF. However, the WMF does maintain a page on its policy regarding its trademarks. In particular, you'll want to the refer to the "Things You Can Do, a Summary" section of WMF trademark policy. Note that there they list several things that you can do with the Wikimedia trademarks that do not require WMF permission, including: "distribute unchanged Wikimedia content, including appropriate attribution, for as long as you distribute them without charge or receipt of anything of value and do so in accordance with this policy". Content of Wikipedia, including the Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia article, are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Pay particular attention to the attribution requirement. Because there are generally many contributors to a Wikipedia article, providing proper attribution is easiest by a including a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using (as each page has a page history which attributes each contributor to the article). For more details see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. —RP88 (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey there WP:MCQ, Greg L raised a legitimate concern on my bot's talk page. Here is the original message:
This bot edit doesn’t strike me as supportable. Per this, at Prince (musician)#Stage names, the artist used that symbol as his legal name from 1993 through 2000 and also copyrighted it in 1997 because he had used it on the cover of one of his albums released in 1992. Accordingly, whether or not it is fair use to use the image depends on whether one is referring to the album, or is referring to the artist as he was known during the 1993–2000 time frame. It would be nice if DASHBot could be told to seek human guidance instead of automatically deleting all use of this symbol in talk pages. I was referring to the artist as he was legally known in the 1993–2000 time frame, in my post. Greg L (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like some comment from someone who is more knowledgeable of the fair use policy than I to help us out. Thanks, Tim1357 talk 22:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- To sum up the discussion at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 6#Image:Prince symbol album.svg and Image:Prince symbol.svg: since he actually had it copyrighted it's copyrighted until a legal body finds otherwise. Given that for now at least it is copyrighted, it can't be used outside of article space per the non-free content policy. I also don't see a cite supporting the article's claim that "free use of the symbol depends in part on whether one is referring to the album, or the artist", but I'm inclined to think that it would be fair use, not free use. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)