The Founders Intent (talk | contribs) →Hugh DeHaven photo: fixed wikilink |
|||
Line 372: | Line 372: | ||
[http://ubdigit.buffalo.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/LIB-UA004&CISOPTR=35&CISOBOX=1&REC=5 Hugh DeHaven and Dr Furnas] <<<< I need someone to check this image, and [http://library.buffalo.edu/libraries/aboutus/policies-use/termsanduse.php Terms of Use] page to see if they agree that this image could be used under Fair Use or something similar. I feel I'm in a gray area of Academic Use and just want to double check. Please leave msg on my Talk. Thanks. --[[User:The Founders Intent|<font color="green">'''''T<small>HE</small> F<small>OUNDERS</small> I<small>NTENT </small>'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:The Founders Intent|''PRAISE'']]</sup> 19:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
[http://ubdigit.buffalo.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/LIB-UA004&CISOPTR=35&CISOBOX=1&REC=5 Hugh DeHaven and Dr Furnas] <<<< I need someone to check this image, and [http://library.buffalo.edu/libraries/aboutus/policies-use/termsanduse.php Terms of Use] page to see if they agree that this image could be used under Fair Use or something similar. I feel I'm in a gray area of Academic Use and just want to double check. Please leave msg on my Talk. Thanks. --[[User:The Founders Intent|<font color="green">'''''T<small>HE</small> F<small>OUNDERS</small> I<small>NTENT </small>'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:The Founders Intent|''PRAISE'']]</sup> 19:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:The text says to contact the Buffalo University for rights. It looks as if it was in a private collection, by an unknown photographer and only published recently on the web site you give. Fair use does not have to be granted by copyright owner. However is there a use for the photo? If there was an [[Hugh DeHaven|article]] on one of the people, that has since died, perhaps you could crop it back to just show that person. But you should consider if other photos are more suitable or whether there are any free ones around. By the way they provide a reference URL: http://ubdigit.buffalo.edu/u?/LIB-UA004,35 that should not change. This would be the preferred way to refer to the item. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
:The text says to contact the Buffalo University for rights. It looks as if it was in a private collection, by an unknown photographer and only published recently on the web site you give. Fair use does not have to be granted by copyright owner. However is there a use for the photo? If there was an [[Hugh DeHaven|article]] on one of the people, that has since died, perhaps you could crop it back to just show that person. But you should consider if other photos are more suitable or whether there are any free ones around. By the way they provide a reference URL: http://ubdigit.buffalo.edu/u?/LIB-UA004,35 that should not change. This would be the preferred way to refer to the item. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
::Presumably it is for [[Hugh |
::Presumably it is for [[Hugh DeHaven]], which the OP is working on. —[[User:TEB728|teb728]] [[User talk:TEB728|t]] [[Special:Contributions/TEB728|c]] 20:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::The 1949 image is still in copyright and the [http://library.buffalo.edu/libraries/aboutus/policies-use/termsanduse.php Terms of Use] clearly state that material from their website is for academic use and prohibits commercial use, so, unless you can show it to be [[freely licenced]], the terms do not allow us to use it. I don't see any evidence that [[Hugh De Haven]], if he is the same person you are referring to, is dead, however, if he is, you could possible justify use here under a fair-use claim. [[User:Ww2censor|ww2censor]] ([[User talk:Ww2censor|talk]]) 22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
:::The 1949 image is still in copyright and the [http://library.buffalo.edu/libraries/aboutus/policies-use/termsanduse.php Terms of Use] clearly state that material from their website is for academic use and prohibits commercial use, so, unless you can show it to be [[freely licenced]], the terms do not allow us to use it. I don't see any evidence that [[Hugh De Haven]], if he is the same person you are referring to, is dead, however, if he is, you could possible justify use here under a fair-use claim. [[User:Ww2censor|ww2censor]] ([[User talk:Ww2censor|talk]]) 22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:34, 22 March 2011
Media copyright questions |
---|
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.
If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. |
|
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
---|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
free speech flag
File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg has been deleted off of english and commons wikipedia. I have been told that the image has been 'oversighted'. You can see some deleted revisions related to the image here : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_3&action=history
There are two questions.
First, the flag itself is based off of this flag: at Yale University Law & Tech site.
As you can see, the flag is simple geometric shapes (6 colored rectangles) and 4 letters. Under US copyright law, is this not un-copyrightable for that reason alone?
There is an alternative version of the flag; it is simply 7 colored bars. I would imagine the argument in that case is even stronger?
Secondly, the HD DVD Free Speech Flag exists on many wikipedia pages. I am not understanding how this is different from the ps3 free speech flag. The HD DVD flag file is here: File:Free-speech-flag.svg and the key itself is even listed in this article : AACS_encryption_key_controversy.
Also see:
- Illegal number
- CMU professor Dave Touretzky's gallery of DeCSS steganography
Thank you Decora (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure that is the name of the image as the deletion log entry does not appear? If a take down order is given then the image may have to be removed, despite what policies here say. It may be possible that the number is covered by copyright, and that the image is being used as a way to circumvent that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- the edits were Wikipedia:Oversighted, thats where there is no deletion log etc. the key number itself does not have to be listed, only a bunch of colored bars. the intent is irrelevant, you cannot copyright 7 colored rectangles (or 6 colored rectangles + 4 letters) no matter what they represent or what you intend by it. please see Wikipedia:Logos and template:pd-text for more info. since the rectangles cannot be copyrighted, their use cannot be a violation of copyright. any law that attempted to ban a sequence of colors in a flag would be a violation of the First Amendment (congress shall make no law infringing the freedom of speech, press) and unconstitutional under US law, and also a violation of the Universal declaration of human rights. Decora (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- And why is the HD DVD flag OK but the PS3 flag is not? Decora (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:Free-speech-flag.svg has also been nominated for deletion. —teb728 t c 02:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- And why is the HD DVD flag OK but the PS3 flag is not? Decora (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- A number may not normally be copyrighted, per threshold of originality. See Feist v. Rural where an entire book of numbers was not copyrightable, nor any of the numbers included within it ("raw data does not satisfy the originality requirement".) Keep in mind the numbers in that case were organized and correlated with other data, and there were more. Int21h (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works.
Can anyone point to any such "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" that is anything other than remotely similar to the flag in question? If not, the flag should not be removed for copyright reasons which do not exist. The other categories do not apply; eg., the work is not a literary work, or software. Also, threshold of originality may apply. A simple string of digits, or colors, or shapes, in the form of a flag or otherwise, would likely not meet this originality, by any stretch.
Every individual on Wikipedia is expected, by law, to know this, as well as all other United States and Flordia laws; ignorance is no excuse. It may be available for Trademark, however, but unless trademark is claimed, such a reason again should not be used for removal.
I have not seen this flag, because the Wikimedia page log says
17:28, 6 March 2011 Decora (talk contribs) uploaded "File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg" (comment removed)
but the flag is not there, and there is no deletion log. Int21h (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the stated flag does not actually represent any kind of "PS3 freedom" as it does not actually let PS3 users do anything interesting. It's a key used to generate factory service dongle keys (which is useless except in some niche scenarios). Somehow it has been mistakenly popularized as some sort of "master key" and repeated by users, but the reality is that it is completely useless. A representative "key" for PS3 freedom would be the "metldr Da key" that geohot released, which is in fact the signing key that can be used to authenticate executables for every manufactured PS3 to date. Not this one.Marcan (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little more concerned that this was oversighted to (what seems to be) avoid scrutiny/sweep the issue under the rug, rather than a valid use of oversight tools. This should never have been oversighted. -- Ned Scott 19:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Alright, please post all the information about who actually deleted, oversighted, etc. this deletion so that we may get their credentials revoked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.204.158.146 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm assuming this fell under WP:OFFICE. But it should be tagged as such, to make it more clear. Otherwise, it looks like the other image will be kept after the deletion discussion on commons. If that happens, this one can be re-uploaded there unless counsel advises otherwise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion as an WP:OFFICE action is one thing, but oversighted? I could see it being oversighted if the file name itself contained the key, but it didn't. -- Ned Scott 19:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have oversight access and can't see the logs but I believe the same thing is done at Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy. Being sued is expensive, so I can understand (regardless whether I agree) why they might do that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I can't. Even if I agreed that the key should not be on wikipedia in any shape or form, oversight is another level on top of deletion. Why make it so there isn't even a log entry? This isn't some kind of personal information or something that could put people in danger. Oversighting still doesn't remove the data from Wikipedia servers. Unless they were afraid that there was going to be a wheel war with admins restoring and re-deleting the information then it was not a valid use of oversight tools. Copyright violation isn't enough for oversight. Like I said before, the oversight alarms me more than the actual deletion. -- Ned Scott 20:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have oversight access and can't see the logs but I believe the same thing is done at Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy. Being sued is expensive, so I can understand (regardless whether I agree) why they might do that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- It was me that originally directed Decora here when they enquired about this on IRC (I have no other involvement in this and I have never viewed the image concerned or any of the pages concerned). There is clearly significant uncertainty over whether oversighting this image was appropriate. Decora, I suggest you email the Audit Subcommittee as per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee#Procedure, refer them to this thread, and ask them to comment. Not as a suggestion that oversight was "abused" in any way by the oversighting admin, but for a clarification of whether this is an acceptable use of oversight. Oversight is a very powerful tool and its use in this instance makes it extremely difficult to discuss the removal of the image productively, or to raise its removal in an appropriate forum for community comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I find it lame that a file is deleted without a notice. Why not add a note: "Deleted by Office because of xxx se (link). Signature."? --MGA73 (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be good. But, for example, we might have gotten a legal DMCA "takedown" notice, and the legal group might still be talking about it. They will eventually explain what's up but it can take a day or so. I'm not saying the lack of information is good, though, I think they should have posted a note when they oversighted the image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- What's really annoying is that whoever it is is still hard at work oversighting or whatever (see the entry in my watchlist in the image), but refuses to come out of the "inky shadows" (as the Car Talk guys would say) and give Decora the common courtesy of informing her what's going on. I think Decora has a very legitimate grievance... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- looks like edits containing the key in text have also been oversighted in PlayStation 3. -- Ned Scott 02:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
i might as well point out that File:NewFreeSpeechFlag.svg predates the File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg by more than a month, (i didnt find it until after i'd uploaded the 6-bars black text version). It has not been deleted either. Decora (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Given the outcome of this discussion [1], which was strongly unanimous in keeping the other flag, I'd say you would be justified in re-uploading the image to commons. If someone wants to make an official statement to contradict that, they are of course free to do it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- i emailed the arbitration audit committe as suggested by Demiurge1000 and will wait for an outcome.. i asked another person familiar with the matter yesterday if i should just upload the flag, they said basically no. Decora (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the other image related to this File:NewFreeSpeechFlag.svg until we know the outcome of this issue. I find it personally odd that one image is kept, but the exact other is nuked (I personally think if the other one was named with regards to the PS3, it would have been nuked too). Once the outcome is determined, then we will move forward. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Then what about File:Free-speech-flag.svg ? it is essentially the same thing. Decora (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dealing with different keys (and issues). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- What is the difference? I dont understand. The issue is not copyright law? Decora (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- The image kept was that of the HD DVD key, which has been resolved a few years ago. The Sony key, which is of the deleted files, is still ongoing and Sony is sending take down notices. Can't say this is exactly happened in our case because I don't know, but once we do figure out what is going on with the Sony key, we can move on from there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Who did Sony send takedown notices to? Wikipedia? I think that [citation needed]. When was the HD DVD key resolved? thanks for the info Decora (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- If Wikipedia got a take down, we cannot say. As for others, http://www.techspot.com/news/42569-geohot-on-sony-ps3-hacking-lawsuit-beating-them-in-court-is-just-a-start.html among other sources states "Sony is still threatening to sue anybody posting or distributing PS3 jailbreak code, despite the fact that the company accidentally tweeted the PlayStation 3 security key." The best place to look for take down notices is at Chilling Effects, but none from Wikipedia that I am aware of. As for the HD DVD, I remember being one of the admins trying to scrub the key from the site when it first came out, but in the span of....I would say about 3 weeks, the issue was resolved and we could keep everything. I will have to look this up later. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Who did Sony send takedown notices to? Wikipedia? I think that [citation needed]. When was the HD DVD key resolved? thanks for the info Decora (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- The image kept was that of the HD DVD key, which has been resolved a few years ago. The Sony key, which is of the deleted files, is still ongoing and Sony is sending take down notices. Can't say this is exactly happened in our case because I don't know, but once we do figure out what is going on with the Sony key, we can move on from there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- What is the difference? I dont understand. The issue is not copyright law? Decora (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dealing with different keys (and issues). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Then what about File:Free-speech-flag.svg ? it is essentially the same thing. Decora (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the other image related to this File:NewFreeSpeechFlag.svg until we know the outcome of this issue. I find it personally odd that one image is kept, but the exact other is nuked (I personally think if the other one was named with regards to the PS3, it would have been nuked too). Once the outcome is determined, then we will move forward. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- i emailed the arbitration audit committe as suggested by Demiurge1000 and will wait for an outcome.. i asked another person familiar with the matter yesterday if i should just upload the flag, they said basically no. Decora (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I have hit upon an explanation of why oversighting File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg makes sense. Arguing from analogy: My telephone number is 10 digits long. I have no possible copyright claim on it, for it contains no originality, and I didn’t create it anyway. But if someone posted, “teb728’s phone number is (xxx)xxx-xxxx,” nobody would question that an oversighter would suppress it. Similarly if someone uploaded a color bar and 4 extra digits with the explanation, “Reinterpret the 6 hexadecimal digits of the RGB value of the bar as decimal digits, and append the 4 extra digits. The result is teb728’s phone number.” An oversighter should suppress that as well, for it reveals the same private information. Well, just as my phone number is my private information, so Sony’s key is their private information; and protecting privacy is one of the normal and valid uses of oversight. The whole argument about whether the image is copyrightable is irrelevant. —teb728 t c 09:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Except that the only reason given for the deletion was 'copyright violation'. nobody mentioned privacy. Additionally, Sony did not sue George Hotz and members of fail0verflow over privacy law, they sued them over copyright law, the DMCA law (part of copyright law), tresspass, Misappropriation, Tortious interference, Breach of Contract, California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the computer fraud and abuse act, etc. is one of those related to privacy? i dont know, maybe tresspass
- Secondly, "There is no protection for information that either is a matter of public record or the victim voluntarily disclosed in a public place. ". . considering Sony re-tweeted the key on twitter...i think they may have a hard time arguing that Decora (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thirdly, corporations do not have exactly the same rights to privacy like people do. Lower court ruling (Proskauer.com) was recently overturned by the Supreme Court (India Times) (story in the Atlantic) Decora (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- (EC. In reply to TEB728)No, that's a very different situation. Wikipedia has strict policies regarding living people in regards to privacy, but a company is not a person (at least not as far as Wikipedia is concerned).
- What is much more likely is that Sony is making a claim that, despite how widespread this and other PS3 keys have become known, that having the information on Wikipedia is a tool for bypassing digital rights management. So even if the key itself isn't copyrightable, it's apart of a DRM system, and protecting that key becomes a copyright issue under the DMCA. They might not even care about this key, which isn't the recent Geohot key that has been in the news lately, but are systematically sending out take down notices to any site that has posted any of their keys.
- I think CBM's right that this is simply a case where things are still being discussed/processed, and that's why we haven't seen any official notice about this. It's still very strange and troubling that there isn't anything being said. Not even a simple "There's an issue regarding this and we can't talk about it right now, so please stand by". And while I still don't think that it would have required oversighting, having some notice would at least tell us that maybe the Foundation is just playing it safe right now until things have settled (likely when some ruling in the Geohot/Sony case is made). As it is now it just causes confusion and frustration. -- Ned Scott 14:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where did Sony claim anything about wikipedia? Citations are needed. Decora (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is not just us, but everyone. Sony is still threatening to sue anybody posting or distributing PS3 jailbreak code, despite the fact that the company accidentally tweeted the PlayStation 3 security key. Sony last week was granted permission to obtain information about who downloaded files and watched a video pertaining to the hack of its PlayStation 3 gaming system. So even just eyeballing something on youtube can get you a lawsuit notice from Sony. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- thanks for the insight, very much appreciated. Decora (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know for sure if this is Sony's doing, but I believe it to be the most likely explanation. Just another reason why we need an actual explanation for what's going on here. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just a note to mention that some vaguely related discussions are occurring currently and/or previously and/or in the future at Wikipedia talk:Office actions and Wikipedia talk:Oversight. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know for sure if this is Sony's doing, but I believe it to be the most likely explanation. Just another reason why we need an actual explanation for what's going on here. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- thanks for the insight, very much appreciated. Decora (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is not just us, but everyone. Sony is still threatening to sue anybody posting or distributing PS3 jailbreak code, despite the fact that the company accidentally tweeted the PlayStation 3 security key. Sony last week was granted permission to obtain information about who downloaded files and watched a video pertaining to the hack of its PlayStation 3 gaming system. So even just eyeballing something on youtube can get you a lawsuit notice from Sony. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where did Sony claim anything about wikipedia? Citations are needed. Decora (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Uhm... I wonder, why nobody asked the reasons to the user who hid the image? (or any other oversighter) -- Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good question. My understanding is that the issue was raised with an oversighter five days ago, and the response was to confirm that the image had been oversighted; but an explanation as to why, was not available. ----Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- thanks for the note. when i emailed the arbitration audit committee, i asked them why it was deleted, they said that was outside the scope of their committe to answer questions like that.
- IIRC i also left a message on the editors talk page. the discussion got kind of complicated, i had posted a link to an article that had the hexcode for the key as a citation for the flag, and they felt that itself was a problem. then i just asked if it was ok to post the flag by itself, i think they said basically no. you can see my talk page IIRC and link to the discussion on the editor's talk page. Decora (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the two (the editor removing the flag in the article and the deletion/oversighting) are directly related. There are a few editors who don't think the key should be in the article, and the talk page indicates that this isn't the first time someone has tried to mention it. Besides, it's not like just anyone can find and oversighter and get something oversighted just because they personally believe something might be a copyright issue. -- Ned Scott 21:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Decora. I am a member of the Audit Subcommittee, which exists to investigate complaints of misuses of CheckUser and oversighter privileges, since, as you have noticed, they leave no public logs and are opaque to most editors. To clarify our response: we are currently looking into the use of suppression in this case. However, the point that was made in our reply was that administrative decisions about deletion are up for the community at large to decide, so while we might decide that suppression (which hides an item from even administrators) was unwarranted, it wouldn't mean that the file would necessarily be undeleted. Dominic·t 21:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dominc, thanks for writing. The File:Free-speech-flag.svg , which is virtually the same issue at hand, was unanimously voted for 'keep'. I can imagine that if PS-3 free speech flag came up for a vote, the results would be similar. However, I would like to know how long we can expect to wait for a decision before the flag can be reposted and brought to a vote? Decora (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
TASS cabled photographs
I have a number of TASS photographs of Soviet cosmonauts that were wired internationally for publication in newspapers. Each image carries an official caption on the front which includes an ID: eg NXP/Comos1443955-10/12/64-MOSCOW this is followed by a description of the photograph, followed by an attribution: eg PHOTO AND BASIC CAPTION INFORMATION FROM OFFICIAL COMMUNIST SOURCE. TASS PHOTO VIA UPI CABLEPHOTO. The backs of the photos are stamped with the names of those photographed with another stamp reading: "Please Credit United Press International Photo - This picture is for your publication only and must not be loaned, syndicated or used for advertising purposes without written permission from United Press International. By accepting this picture you agree to hold United Press International harmless from any damage or loss arising by any reason of your use or publication of this picture" Then follows their address in San Fransisco. There is also a stamp noting when the reference library of the newspaper received the image. In this case: October 14 1964.
These are official images that were published in both Russia and the West. They would be invaluable primary sources to illustrate biographical articles on spaceflight (cosmonauts). Could these images be used? If so what tags/information should I attach to them? Aakheperure (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- The words “must not be loaned, syndicated or used for advertising purposes without written permission” indicate they are not free enough for Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 01:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks. Aakheperure (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, this is much more complex. The copyright status would need to be checked for each image. If they were public domain in Russia, {{PD-URAA}} might apply. {{PD-RU-exempt}} might also apply, as might either {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-Pre1978}}. Without checking the history of each image, it is very difficult to know what sort of conditions might or might not apply. For background on ITAR-TASS, see Information Telegraph Agency of Russia. Note that many of these photos are available via the ITAR-TASS archives at tassphoto.com. It is also worth noting that any active copyrights originally owned by the international photo service of United Press International are now owned by Reuters. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is there enough information at the ITAR-TASS archives to determine if any of those tags apply? What kind of information is needed? Consider, for example, this image of Belka from the archives. Mlm42 (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, this is much more complex. The copyright status would need to be checked for each image. If they were public domain in Russia, {{PD-URAA}} might apply. {{PD-RU-exempt}} might also apply, as might either {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-Pre1978}}. Without checking the history of each image, it is very difficult to know what sort of conditions might or might not apply. For background on ITAR-TASS, see Information Telegraph Agency of Russia. Note that many of these photos are available via the ITAR-TASS archives at tassphoto.com. It is also worth noting that any active copyrights originally owned by the international photo service of United Press International are now owned by Reuters. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- UPI = Commerical content provider. As noted their material were purchased and now owned by Reuters, another commercial content provider. If these images were sold worldwide various copyrights would be in play - in other words it is fairly standard for various agency to only serve certain sections of the worldwide market. Perhaps TASS serviced Russia, but UPI serviced other areas - such as the United States. The image may be in PD in Russia, but not elsewhere - and if it is not PD in the United States hosting it on our servers, which are located in the United States, would be a copyvio. A claim under NFCC would fail if the images are still being sold via Reuters. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This photo seems to be the same one as listed in this article http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-8159-after-the-storm.html but the photo does not seem to have been uploaded by either the photographer or newspaper it was published but instead by one of the people in the photograph
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/lotu5/4965728378/ <-- photograph on flickr listed under a creative commons license by account lotu5
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Micha-cardenas.jpg another photo on wikipedia of Micha Cardenas showing her names as Micha Cardenas and DJ Lotu5
Not really sure if this is or is not a copyright violation or what process needs to be followed if it is. XinJeisan (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The photo is different than the one in the article. Very similar but different. 68.107.20.125 (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Google Earth 1945 imagery
Google Earth has recently been updated with imagery dating back as far as 1945. Could images from this be uploaded to Wikipedia and under which licence? Harrison49 (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- It depends upon the status of the original individual images. This also depends upon any agreements Google has come up with the possible current copyright holders for using them. In general, the fact that Google has used these images does not confer any special permission with regards to uploading to Wikipedia. The status of the images themselves is the determining factor. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I think it would be beneficial for several articles to have this kind of historical information added in so I'll start investigating. Harrison49 (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Print Screen Snap shot of SVU Tv character Casey Novak
Hi Everyone! I am not really too new, but I have never uploaded an image before... I was just wondering if you would be able to help me upload an image to Wikipedia. I have never done it before...I have tried, but havent gotten any further than...well anything :|. I am worried about Copyright violations etc. If you can help me, the image I want to upload...It is of a character from the show Law & Order: SVU. I have an IPod touch therefore meaning i go to Itunes and can buy movies shows etc. I bought an SVU episode, and I got a few images (snapshots with a thing where you can prt screen on the ipod like computer) of this character that I would like to upload on to Wikipedia...The only problem is, Is that I dont know if copy laws etc. will let me upload it. Whats more worse is that I don't even know how to upload :| Would you please help me? This picture is not rude or anything... Thankyou! :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright would apply and still be owned by the filmmaker. So your snapshot could only be used under fair use. However there already is an image of the character, and it would be unfair to use two. Are any of your images better than the one there? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The one that is currently there...like right now...Was added by me yesterday. It should be with the correct information...hopefully :)-- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The fair use rationale looks to be formatted correctly. However there are two old images left there, that will have to be deleted. And could a free shot of the actress replace the screen shot? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- That won't be possible, replacing the character profile with the real actress, as they may look different. For example the character may have green hair, whereas the actress has blonde hair. And if it is mentioned in the article, that the character has green hair, The photo won't be able to support that. That isn't just with this character but with, well, basically the whole lot of them. With deleting the previous photo's, that can be done, but I just don't know how to do it :S Sorry. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 06:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- That would be a good argument if a character did in fact look substantially different from the actor, but File:Casey Novak - SVU.jpg does not look substantially different from File:Gday usa2008 dianeneal a.jpg. —teb728 t c 08:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay...But I don't see why we are now talking about replacing a character's photo with the actors. The character is the character...The photo that is there now, is fine (don't want to blow my own bubble). The Casey Novak article is talking about the Law & Order: SVU character, not it's character's portrayer. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 08:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#1 says, “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” Presumably the purpose is to show what the character looks like. If the character looks like a free photo of the actress, the non-free photo of the character is replaceable. —teb728 t c 08:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information...this photo, that is currently there is fine. It is from one of her latest episodes of SVU. The photo can stay. If you have any concerns/ issues please feel free to take it up with me on my talk page. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#1 says, “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” Presumably the purpose is to show what the character looks like. If the character looks like a free photo of the actress, the non-free photo of the character is replaceable. —teb728 t c 08:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay...But I don't see why we are now talking about replacing a character's photo with the actors. The character is the character...The photo that is there now, is fine (don't want to blow my own bubble). The Casey Novak article is talking about the Law & Order: SVU character, not it's character's portrayer. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 08:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- That would be a good argument if a character did in fact look substantially different from the actor, but File:Casey Novak - SVU.jpg does not look substantially different from File:Gday usa2008 dianeneal a.jpg. —teb728 t c 08:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- That won't be possible, replacing the character profile with the real actress, as they may look different. For example the character may have green hair, whereas the actress has blonde hair. And if it is mentioned in the article, that the character has green hair, The photo won't be able to support that. That isn't just with this character but with, well, basically the whole lot of them. With deleting the previous photo's, that can be done, but I just don't know how to do it :S Sorry. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 06:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- The fair use rationale looks to be formatted correctly. However there are two old images left there, that will have to be deleted. And could a free shot of the actress replace the screen shot? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The one that is currently there...like right now...Was added by me yesterday. It should be with the correct information...hopefully :)-- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Taking an image of copyrighted material
File:LunarSSSCPackage.jpg - can I take an image of this content from my own copy and upload as under a free license or would the fact there is copyrighted artwork present as the main aspect of the image mean I could not? I ask because this wouldn't be the same as me taking a photo of a painting or scanning an image since I'd also be creating a setup.陣内Jinnai 23:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- If your derivative work had sufficient originality for a copyright, and if you licensed it under a free license, using it would still require licenses on each of the components. —teb728 t c 02:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This image was moved to Commons without information on the date of the original upload or the original uploader. I would appreciate it if an administrator could view the deleted history for the file and update the file description page. Adrignola (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Russian website yanko.lib
I reverted the good faith edit in the Leontyne Price article here. The reason was this website, which appears to have reproduced the entire Miles Davis book. And other than detailed information about the book and the copyright at the top of the page, there is nothing to indicate that Davis or the copyright owner gave permission for the reproduction.
We can't use this site, can we?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The edit appear to be fine even though the web source is a copyright violation, so removing the website link would make it ok. Have you checked a hardcopy of the book to see if the reference is otherwise accurate? It is not a situation where large amounts of the prose are being quoted in the article creating a copyright violation here. ww2censor (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have a copy of the book, and I don't believe that the editor who made the change has a copy, either. I believe part of the quote was added (didn't check when) by some other editor, and that the last editor "verified" the quote from the Russian website and expanded on it. Thus, when I reverted, it went back to the original quote with a citation needed template for it. To make the whole thing legit, someone would have to look at the book itself. I posted here only to confirm my belief that citing to the Russian website is a copyright violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Images in foreign government archives
What is WP policy on uploading and using images located in foreign government archive sites? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- We still have to establish the copyright status of the image, where when and who was responsible. Then it should be possible to see if the image is now in public domain. For government images, usually different rules apply than if the image came from elsewhere. Archives are often a good source of free images, but often will not tell you if the image is now free. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
British Transport Films - in or out of copyright?
British Transport Films were state-produced documentaries produced between 1950 and the late 1980s which are now rights managed by the British Film Institute. However, because they were working for the state, does that mean that under the rules of Crown copyright, the earliest instalments are actually public domain, and by extension are screenshots (or even full copies of the film) acceptable to be on Wikipedia under a public domain licence? At the moment, films such as Elizabethan Express have fairuse rationales, but I would be interested to know if they are technically PD. Bob talk 15:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- If the state actually made them, then the earliest would have fallen into PD. However there may be more copyright material in it such as music, other people's film snippets, script. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah right, thanks. So I imagine the screenshots at least can be licensed as public domain as long as they were first shown before 1960. Bob talk 02:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- At least a screen shot will not be encumbered by music or scripts copyright. Just make sure about the source of the film, which may appear in the credits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah right, thanks. So I imagine the screenshots at least can be licensed as public domain as long as they were first shown before 1960. Bob talk 02:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
On Flickr confirmation
What to do when have approval from Flickr image owner to use photo on commons (have approval to upload for article)but owner has already used modus All rights reserved. What kind of approval is needed, to upload and give information about owner and his confirmation.
Lepota (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The owner will have to change the permission on the flickr page to cc-by or cc-by-sa or public domain. Otherwise the flickr owner will have to use the procedure in WP:PERMIT, using their yahoo email matching the flickr account name, or some other equivalent way to prove a free license. Note that just giving permission for an appearance on commons is not free enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
www.dailymotion.com/us
The above website is being used in the stub article Martin Hirsch. I reverted the use here partly based on the copyright violation (although there are a number of things wrong with the material). The website appears to be a YouTube-type site. I don't see any permission to use the copyrighted material. According to their FAQ, Dailymotion does not review video uploads for possible copyright violations. See here. Am I right to revert cites to Dailymotion?
By the way, is this the wrong forum to raise these issues? I just noticed (stupid me) that this forum is mainly for images and other media, not for possible copyright violations generally. If this is the wrong place, I apologize, but I'd also appreciate knowing where the right place is.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Even a suggestion as to where else to post this question would be appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Dead person, photos from over 65 years ago, probably PD-USGov but no source
I'm working on an article about a mariner who was awarded a medal for service as a cadet of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy during World War 2. He died a few years ago.
I have located several images of him online, and want to arrange the best possible copyright situation for using one on the Wikipedia article about him.
I've been told by the webmaster of the website that this image was provided to him for use on the website by the mariner's relatives. I've arranged for emails to be sent to the relatives, but there has been no reply.
The image on this page at The Times of Malta was almost certainly created by a U.S. government employee (it's a wartime image of him probably taken for publicity purposes), but I can't prove that, and the webmaster of that site has not replied to my emails asking about the source. Likewise the image of him used here at Marine Log Magazine is again almost certainly taken by a U.S. government employee during wartime, but again I can't prove that.
Is the most appropriate thing to;
- use one of the three images under Fair Use, since he's dead and there's no way of obtaining a freely licensed version;
or,
- use the image from the Times of Malta or from Marine Log Magazine under Template:PD-USGov-DOT even though I can't specify a fully accurate source? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure if this helps or not, but there's another photo on the USMM.org site which says the photo was provided to them by Francis Dales himself. page-Photo courtesy Francis Dalesphoto There's a similar black & white photo of him in this book (photo section after page 178): At All Costs: How a Crippled Ship and Two American Merchant Mariners Turned the Tide of World War II. The image in the book says it was provided by Mrs. M. Dales from the family collection. Both photos show him wearing his medal. Hope at least one of the sources will provide you with a photo for the article. We hope (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Khalid-Saeed
File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg This image is uploaded illegally from this web site Masrawy. There is a copyright at the bottom of the website.
- The person who uploaded it is claiming fair use.
- The photo is owned by a family member, and no permission has been given to use it, which is discussed at length here Wikipedia:Non-free content review
- This is a blatant violation of copyright and should be deleted on sight per Wikipedia policy. USchick (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Under fair use, no permission is needed, however the image has to meet the 10 criteria in WP:NFCC. If you can demonstrate that any of these are not met, then the image can be removed at the appropriate time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please don’t engage in forum shopping. The image is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg. If you have something to contribute, enter it there. —teb728 t c 08:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
What's with the upload page?
This isn't a copyright question, but this is the only help page referenced on the upload page, so I guess I'll leave my response here. I was trying to upload some photos, but the upload page is trying to send me over to commons. I rarely go to commons. I think I have an account there, but can't for the life of me remember my password. The bottom line is that my time is very limited, and I don't have time to be going to all different kinds of websites in order to contribute to Wikipedia. I like to upload my photos as free, public domain images, but will not deal with the hassle of logging in at other sites to do this. Zaereth (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- You are strongly encouraged to use commons for free images. Then other Wikipedia and wikimedia projects can use your photos. For example the simple English or other language may want to use the pictures on an article on the same topic. Reasons to not use commons are for example if the image is for your userpage and so only to be used on en.wikipedia. The Wikipedia:Unified login lets you login once to Wikipedia projects with the one user and password. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I use this picture?
Can I use this picture? http://www.hennepinattorney.org/Portals/0/2011/mike-freeman.gif It was also a campaign picture.
Leafyplant 01:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Probably not, there is no information on its copyright. Copyright licenses have to granted in writing, and if there is no text on the license granted, there is no license that Wikipedia can use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Terms of Use page says, “All contents of the Hennepin County Attorney Web Site are: © 2011 MN Hennepin County Attorney and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved.” So the photo is not licensed under a free license. And since Mr Freeman is a living person, a free photo of him could be made; so the photo could not be used as non-free content. —teb728 t c 03:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. This person is an elected official, is there any other way to get a picture? Leafyplant 03:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- You could ask him if you can take a photo of him for Wikipedia. Many people who stand for election are happy to have their photo taken. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- However, it must be freely licenced because Wikipedia only use is not permitted. ww2censor (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
what is abbnoor
what is abbnoor abbnoor is acollege in fdk ,punjab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepbrar302 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a media copyright question? If not ask at the village pump. ww2censor (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Photo of David Hunter Strother aka, Porte Crayon on Wikipedia
Is this a copyrighted photo - does not seem to have a tag? I am editor for a state surveying mag. and would like to use the photo in connection with an upcoming article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Survguy (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you are asking about File:David Hunter Strother.jpg, according to the tag it is in the public domain, having been published in 1900. —teb728 t c 23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
uploading images asap
I need to upload the photos of my dad and president Clinton with others cropped out, he is in a public place and the photographers name is mentioned I will give him credits;"by" and it was taken for the news paper does this come under cc. How do I proceed forward for a successful upload. I have another photo I took of him. How do I proceed. Debracollier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debracollier (talk • contribs) 23:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- You can grant a free license on the photo that you took yourself (if you were not working in your job at the time). I suggest that you pick cc-by-sa-3.0 for your license. For the other photo taken by the photographer, only the photographer or the newspaper they worked for can grant a free license, and not you, so you must get a written free license grant (which is usually hard). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Don Leicht
The articles Don Leicht and John Fekner show a number of images with copyright notices in their captions. Looking at the image files, some have copyright notices like "© 1982", some appear to be uploaded by their artist, some say "donated" by the artist, and some just say "own work" with just the normal license. Not sure what, if anything, needs to be done. Station1 (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- The @ can be removed, putting it in makes no difference in the caption, and the person who put in the text allowed changes to be made to it in the CC-license. Copyright does not have to be claimed for it to exist. The year can be useful information. The pcitures on commons include the information credit anyway. When uploading the fine print says that credit can be a url linking to the information. The CC licenses allow attribution to be given in different ways, it does not have to stay in the caption. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I use a google earth image.
I have an aerial view of a high school that I would like to add to the page, but I not sure if that is ok. Richl51889 (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
From this page http://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines.html it seems that as long as I include the attribution text, but I don't know there is a lot of information on this page and it is difficult to decipher. Richl51889 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you can't. It's non-free content, and even if Google were okay with us claiming "fair use" for it, we couldn't do so under our own non-free content criteria. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- What if I took a picture with my camera, I can take a picture of my computer that just so happens to have a screenshot of google earth. Richl51889 (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to add a photo to the wiki page of a local high school
I'm wanting to add a picture of a local high school that does not currently have a picture of the school on the wiki page. I've saved a picture of the school off of its webpage but I am unsure how to go about copyright or any other government type issues. The school is Pigeon Forge High School of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. --Spigelmoyer (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- You'd need to have an explicit copyright release from the owners (i.e. the school, presumably), in a way that you can provide proof of (per e-mail from the school to permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org, or through a statement on the school's website). That's a bit of a hassle. Since it's a local school, wouldn't it actually be easier if you just went yourself and took your own picture? That's by far the preferred way, actually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I had considered that, actually which I agree would probably be far easier though I really like the aerial shot on the website. But I suppose I'll take my own picture. Thanks for the reply. --Spigelmoyer (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- You could also draw a map as a substitute for the google map that you can't use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- For reference I think the OP is referring to the photo here. —teb728 t c 01:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the photo I was originally wanting to use. --Spigelmoyer (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- For reference I think the OP is referring to the photo here. —teb728 t c 01:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- You could also draw a map as a substitute for the google map that you can't use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I had considered that, actually which I agree would probably be far easier though I really like the aerial shot on the website. But I suppose I'll take my own picture. Thanks for the reply. --Spigelmoyer (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
What non-free image template should I use?
[2] Would this fall under video game screen shots or not?--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 14:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Probably yes, but we already have sufficient images at Mario and an almost identical image as part of the cover art of Super Mario Bros. 2, so you'd have a hard time explaining why you need this additional one (please see WP:NFCC, especially the point about "minimality of use"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- May I point out that its for the {{Reqphoto}} template on the talk page?-- Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 16:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Are Indian's religious painting copyright-free ?
Hello, Is a photo of painting taken in a Indian's church (Kerala) copyright-free ? I made an assembly of several paintings of Jesus taken in the Cathedral of Santa Cruz in Cochin. Is this a derived work or an original one and therefore copyright-free? Can I post this assembly in the wiki commons and under what license? Thanks for your answers Philippe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe Boutelier (talk • contribs) 18:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Commons:COM:FOP#India may help you. —teb728 t c 18:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Using letter as reference
I have a letter from my wife's (now deceased mother) in a jpeg file. I'd like to post it as a reference on the Big Basin Prairie Preserve page, however not sure what permissions to use. My wife Janie Stein is happy to have this letter from Feb 1975 posted. I just couldn't get through the licensing pages. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Bates (talk • contribs) 23:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry but Wikipedia is not a reliable source; so even if you did upload it, you couldn't use it as a reference. —teb728 t c 02:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I use these?
Hey guys. I've been around here for quite some time but am CLUELESS on images. I am currently doing a massive expansion of Boone Kirkman, and there are several images of him at the BoxRec wiki here, but I can't tell if I can use any of them or not. Please let me know if any are usable in the article as they would be a lot of help towards illustrating it. MobileSnail 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately those image have neither a source nor a copyright licence, so we cannot tell the copyright status of any of them. You will have to try and find some freely licenced images somewhere else. None of the image I found online are free either. ww2censor (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Zimbabwean Dollar
My daughter is doing a project at school that requires pictures of Zimbabwean Currency 5-6 different notes. Also the meaning of each picture on the bank note. Please help. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.31.118.177 (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is Zimbabwean dollar useful. —teb728 t c 09:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deletion policy when free image is replaced by non-free
Jean-Bertrand Aristide had a free use image for its infobox, File:Clinton&Aristide.jpg, which was replaced by File:Jean-Bertrand-Aristide.jpg, a non free image. After image was tagged for being non free use for a living subject, uploader contested. IMHO, the rationale to keep the non free image isn't valid, as there is a free one available which the user removed. Does policy ever allow the replacement of a free image for a non free one? Thanks! We hope (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader could perhaps make an argument that the specific alternative, File:Clinton&Aristide.jpg, doesn't qualify as a satisfactory replacement, because it's too small and low quality to show the subject properly. However, since the subject is still living, he can't defeat the more general argument of replaceability (i.e. that some other new image could be created). The argument he actually did make in the hangon tag, that an image is needed from the time Aristide actually was president, is invalid. We do generally accept images of a person's current looks even if their notability is grounded in an earlier period of their lives, and in any case, Aristide was president until just a few years ago and he can't have changed that much since then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fut.Perf. is correct. File:Jean-Bertrand-Aristide.jpg is obviously a replaceable by any non-free image so clearly fails WP:NFCC#1 and the historical argument is rubbish. A front-on portrait would, of course, be preferable. What he looked like at a particular point in time is not important in identifying him in his own article. Any image would be appropriate for the infobox. ww2censor (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
How can I add a photo from other website to Wikipedia?
I have prepared a page about a well known person in Kerala, India. I wish to use his Facebook profile photo in the Wiki page. How can I add that photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeepkottayi (talk • contribs) 15:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- You cannot, unless the owner explicitly releases it under a free license, such as cc-by-sa. You could ask them to provide such a license in the form of a statement on their Facebook page, or to mail it to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org". Without such a license, I'm afraid there's no way we can accept it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Image Copyright
Is there an appropriate copyright tag for an image thats copyright expired in 2010? i.e. not PD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.112.112 (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are many PD-something tags, which country is this from and what reason did the copyright expire? Due to many countries extending copyright from 50 to 70 years there is not so much material expiring copyright at present. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hugh DeHaven photo
Hugh DeHaven and Dr Furnas <<<< I need someone to check this image, and Terms of Use page to see if they agree that this image could be used under Fair Use or something similar. I feel I'm in a gray area of Academic Use and just want to double check. Please leave msg on my Talk. Thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 19:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- The text says to contact the Buffalo University for rights. It looks as if it was in a private collection, by an unknown photographer and only published recently on the web site you give. Fair use does not have to be granted by copyright owner. However is there a use for the photo? If there was an article on one of the people, that has since died, perhaps you could crop it back to just show that person. But you should consider if other photos are more suitable or whether there are any free ones around. By the way they provide a reference URL: http://ubdigit.buffalo.edu/u?/LIB-UA004,35 that should not change. This would be the preferred way to refer to the item. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Presumably it is for Hugh DeHaven, which the OP is working on. —teb728 t c 20:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- The 1949 image is still in copyright and the Terms of Use clearly state that material from their website is for academic use and prohibits commercial use, so, unless you can show it to be freely licenced, the terms do not allow us to use it. I don't see any evidence that Hugh De Haven, if he is the same person you are referring to, is dead, however, if he is, you could possible justify use here under a fair-use claim. ww2censor (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is WP considered commercial? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- You probably want to read WP:NFC, especially the explanation of policy that explains why non-commercial content is not acceptable to the Foundation. ww2censor (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Is {{PD-USGov}} applicable for photos, which were produced by Los Alamos National Laboratory? I think no, but I don't want to decline this request at WP:FFU, without absolutely sure about it. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 11:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- It might depend on the photos. Abstractly, I'd paint a wide paintbrush and say no. Even though it's a federal site, they're claiming copyright on their website which is quite unusual for a federal web site. So, there's different factors at play here. When in doubt... --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Personal experience, the National Labs are sanctioned by the gov't but run academic or commercial entities. So no, work produced by the Labs are not PD-Gov as they are rarely gov't workers. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)