Mary Cummins (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
:: LouisBrownstone is blocked as a sockpuppet.... [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 04:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
:: LouisBrownstone is blocked as a sockpuppet.... [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 04:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
::: I made the page. I took those photos. I was one of the painters, also cleaned and renovated it. I wrote the press releases and made the website. i didn't realize the painter and story were false at the time. The mural is not owned by the artists. It is owned by the person who owns the building. The bldg owner made that very clear as he will be building a building there in the future and didn't want a legal issue about the mural. He already broke ground. That is not public property or a public mural.[[User:Mary Cummins|Mary Cummins]] ([[User talk:Mary Cummins|talk]]) 04:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:58, 24 December 2016
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. |
Photo for a BLP
I apologize in advance because I'm sure you have seen this same question a thousand times.
I am writing a biography, at User:Gronk Oz/John Dwyer (medicine). The text is just about done, but I had trouble finding a photo - there are plenty on various websites but they are all copyright. Finally in desperation I contacted the subject who was happy to help, but I got the impression he didn't understand the copyright question. He emailed me a photo which seems to be one of his profile shots; it's an ordinary head-and-shoulders shot. It is low resolution (324 x 223 pixels). He does not know the name of the photographer; he was employed to take the photo on behalf of the organization. So the question is ... what do I need in order to use it in the Infobox of this article? Or am I out of luck? --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Why not just ask the subject to take a selfie or have a relative, co-worker or friend, etc. take a photo and then have the photographer (1) upload it to Commons as "own work" or (2) have some one else upload the photo and send in a permissions email to OTRS? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response, Marchjuly. I was trying not to impose on him more than necessary - but if that's what is needed, then so be it. I might even be able to meet up with him and take a photo myself (talking somebody through the OTRS process is a nightmare which has failed every time I have tried it).--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- This is just thinking out-side-the-box. This guy must be something like 77 years of age by now, and a lot older and wiser than most of us. Yet, should not bamboozle him with copyright issues that have changed over his life time and that he may not be aware of. Should he (the subject) be proud of having a Wikipedia page (using technology that was science fiction in his day) he may be willing to freely and willingly grant you a request for some photo shots that has him on 'public property'. Thus, avoiding any conflict with issues of images taken 'in private space'. Still, it is nice to have some shots, of a learned fellow in his study, surrounded by shelfs of text books ( some of which he may have written himself). Your draft looks good- (although I have no idea if your subject is WP notable). Yet, if you can meet him and take loads of photos (thus avoiding the OTRS issues) which you can upload to Wikimedia Commons for use on other WP articles. Go-for-it. Another tip. Someone like this may well have retained some keep-sakes. It may be only his first student microscope but if you can get him to posse with that, it adds gravitance to to any such add image here. Old folks like me, tend to place young whippersnappers into to pigeon holes, like time wasters and those that deserve our time. Go-for-it!--Aspro (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Validity and legitimacy of Do not move to commons tag at File:Avenida rizal manila.jpg and File:Makati ayala avenue.jpg
I'm very curious at this tag added at these img files, because it doesn't seem to be logically right:
According to what I have read at Rizal Avenue, this Philippines road was built in 1910s. For me, this pic of Rizal Avenue clearly depicts (and focuses on) the street (not the surrounding buildings, as the filename suggests). It is not like the now-deleted commons file of File:QMC View.jpg, which was focused on the monument more than Elliptical Road and clearly violates FOP restriction. However, I'm highly puzzled at why such street img is tagged as such. What I know is that FOP restrictions in the Philippines cover only the landmarks, monuments, famous buildings, and the like, but not streets nor street scenes. The street scene depicted at this image is very similar to that of the now-Commons File:Calle la Escolta Manila.jpg and File:Meralco Avenue.jpg (similar in respect to their angles and subject positions). The structures depicted in this picture are only LRT rail line (in partial and non-prominent view located at the img's extreme right side and corners) and a couple of buildings that are not prominent/noteworthy enough to be included in FOP restriction.
For this file of Makati's famous street, the image focuses more on street (as the name suggests), and the landmarks are in a view that is not highly prominent (in addition to those trees depicted on the img that help obstruct, at least partially, those landmarks from prominence). There are other pictures of Ayala avenue (like this one) that have unobstructed landmarks but are now in commons and complying with FOP standards. For me, FOP restriction for File:Makati ayala avenue.jpg is unreasonable.
I might need more help and assistance (and a few discussion) regarding this matter. Thanks! JWilz12345 (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say it's FOP because the buildings are de minimis. The photo focuses on no building in particular, making the street itself what is depicted. It's impossible to photograph a streetscape without getting any of the surrounding buildings in the picture, and in this photo effort was made to keep it minimal (all buildings are either partially cropped out or obscured from view). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've noticed that File:Makati ayala avenue.jpg has a duplicate, sister file at Commons (as commons:File:Makati ayala avenue.jpg), with same description, same resolution and size, and same street scene. Since the Do not move to commons tag at the enwiki file is not reasonable (as the buildings here are in de minimis basis, just like you said), can I replace it with Now Commons tag? Is the sister file's existence in Commons a justifiable reason for the enwiki file's FOP (and its eventual transfer to Commons)? Thanks! JWilz12345 (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's at your discretion. But I'd say you have a good reason (and a second opinion), so be bold. Since the files are identical, the copy here on Wikipedia will be deleted based on that Now Commons tag. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've replaced those do not move to commons tags with: now commons tag for File:Makati ayala avenue.jpg and move to commons tag for File:Avenida rizal manila.jpg. I hope that I did the right thing. JWilz12345 (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Poorich.jpg
the photo :File:Poorich.jpg is not public domain. I am the author, Tuca Vieira — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:F721:2F:80B7:4460:1359:ABC4 (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. It should be deleted shortly. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Tommo Inc. Logo
I was looking at the article for Tommo Inc., parent company of Humongous Entertainment and UFO Interactive Games. On this page, Tommo Inc. does not have a logo; on their website, I found this logo at the following link: http://tommo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TommoLogo-64px.jpg
However, in their terms of use, they state: "You may not, however, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute in any way the contents of this Site including the text, images, audio and video for public or commercial purposes, without express written permission from Tommo, Inc."
Does this image fall under the stated public purposes, and therefore would require permission from Tommo to use, or is it fair use? CyanGuy512 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Fair use does not require permission from the copyright holder. Anyone may upload it as WP:FAIR USE. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
File:WSJXFoxPR.png
I was going to ask about File:WSJXFoxPR.png at WP:FFD, but figure it might be little quicker here. Any reason why this needs to be non-free? Seems more like {{PD-logo}} and OK to tag for with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- I would agree. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 04:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, less complex than many of the examples on commons:COM:TOO#US. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
'License tagging for File:Parliament of Greenland (122016).svg' message
I've received the following message from 'ImageTaggingBot' earlier today:
"Thanks for uploading File:Parliament of Greenland (122016).svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)"
In response, I went to the respective image and added this tag (
) to the file description page. If there's anything else I need to do in order to verify the authenticity of this image file, please let me know as soon as possible? If this is the case, could you please provide some assistance to this issue that I'm having with this image file? Thank you.
KLO2015 (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- @KLO2015: Did you create this image? Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 05:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Ramaksoud2000: Yes, I did create this image on my own using this site (https://tools.wmflabs.org/parliamentdiagram/parliamentinputform.html) late last night. I'll be signing off now, since it's getting late and I need to get to bed. Hope to hear from you (or anyone else) on this issue tomorrow. Good night. KLO2015 (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- @KLO2015: I have removed the warning tags, and clarified that you are releasing the copyright under that license on the file description page. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 05:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Ramaksoud2000: Thank you for the notification and resolution on this issue. KLO2015 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Images of branded sustenance
I have a picture, one which I took myself, of a single bottle of Trader Joe's brand winter wassail. It is similar to File:MinuteMaidBoost.JPG. I would like to upload it and release it under a creative commons license, then add it to wassail, perhaps expanding the content there to make it more relevant. I see images of this nature claiming to be available under acceptable licenses (such as the similar example I provided), but I notice that a lot of the time they are in a group (e.g. File:RackofJuices.png and File:Jack-Daniels-at-Lollapalooza.jpg). I then see images like File:Frosted-Flakes-Box-Small.jpg that are non-free. Is the image that I've described acceptable as free use? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- "Yes", and no. The graphics you see on product packaging are (almost) always copyrighted. On the other hand, the photo is yours and you can license it under any license you want. Together these terms means you are dealing with at derivative work. For the purposes of Wikipedia, you can upload it locally, as a non-free image, and specify that you are releasing the photo under a free license, but have no control over the graphics. Slap both a non-free and a free tag on it in addition to Template:Photo of art. As with all non-free images, make sure WP:NFC is met. Further information: c:COM:PACKAGING WP:FREER – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's not possible to tell for sure without seeing the photo. It depends on what the photo shows exactly. If your photo shows a whole bottle with a label, such photos are often considered free by Commons, on the basis of the court case Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits by applying it to similar situations such as photos of whole bottles of wine, beer and some other beverages. Although in principle the photos are accepted on Commons, in practice it's not guaranteed that someone will not try to delete them by mistake or without thinking (see for example DR 1 closed as "keep" and DR 2 closed as "keep" but file deleted out of process). -- Asclepias (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Is the FEU campus bldg at File:Feu campus quezon blvd. underpass.jpg de minimis or not?
Hi! I already know about de minimis on images of various highways and thoroughfares in Manila, Philippines. However, I'm curious at this image of Quezon Boulevard, which appears to depict both the highway and the campus building (as the filename says). Although it is tagged as do not move to commons due to no FOP here in the Philippines, this image is mainly used in the ff. transportation-related articles: Quezon Boulevard and List of roads in Metro Manila. It is not in any way used in articles concerning FEU (Far Eastern University). For me this image mainly depicts the road, not the campus. However, I might need second (or third) opinion, and some clarification. Thanks!~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWilz12345 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Pomona mural
@CaroleHenson: asked me about some edits by @Mary Cummins: re File:Goddessofpomonafull.jpg.
See User talk:Mary Cummins#Pomona Envisions the Future.
The photograph is of a mural on the side of a building.
The photo was uploaded by @LouisBrownstone:; Cummins may be claiming to be the actual photographer; it is not clear.
On top of that, the photo is of a mural, and there is no permission for the underlying mural. Cummins may be claiming to be one of the artists.
There may be a viable fair use claim, but I don't know if 800px for a 135-foot mural is OK for fair use. If it is fair use, then a fair use claim needs to be made. Glrx (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- There are three files: File:Goddessofpomonafull.jpg, File:PomonaEnvisionsTheFutureMural1.jpg, and File:PomonaEnvisionsTheFutureMural2.jpg. and I am repinging Mary Cummins.--—CaroleHenson (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- I made the page. I took those photos. I was one of the painters, also cleaned and renovated it. I wrote the press releases and made the website. i didn't realize the painter and story were false at the time. The mural is not owned by the artists. It is owned by the person who owns the building. The bldg owner made that very clear as he will be building a building there in the future and didn't want a legal issue about the mural. He already broke ground. That is not public property or a public mural.Mary Cummins (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)