(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
---|
Archives |
||
---|---|---|
|
||
- How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
- On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
- From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
- For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
- For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
- For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
- Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
- Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
- Hit Save page.
- If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
- How to ask a question
- To ask a new question hit the "Click here to ask your question" link above.
- Please sign your question by typing
~~~~
at the end. - Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
- Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
- Note for those replying to posted 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.
Contents
Restoring picture file
Hi, following this Deletion request on Commons, the file File:Isaac Asimov on Throne.png was deleted, as Commons does not accept (anymore) the GDFL-IS licence tag. Could the original file (File:AsimovOnThrone.png) be restored here? Please, where have I to ask for?
I've asked before the same questions, but probably in the wrong place. Thanks. --Harlock81 (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Greetings. There is a claim that there is no evidence of the file being under that license - do you have proof to the contrary? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- On 21 november 2016, the file was deleted because GFDL-IS is a license no more accepted for Commons. Evidence about the license should be in the description page of the original file here on en.wiki. On Commons, it was accepted the declaration of user Xiong about the email that he exchanged with Rowena Morrill and that was reported on the first of the two Deletion requests on 22 January 2010. Jameslwoodward recognised later he was wrong about the "absence of evidence of permission from the painter" here. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- For some reason the local file appears to be gone, and the license template apparently indicated a non-free license. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- 1. Did you look at the filename it had on en.wikipedia? 2. The author required attribution to her name, which does not make the work non-free. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Technically, they demand an Invariant Section consisting of the words 'Rowena Morrill' which apparently renders the license non-free but I am not convinced we need to treat such a minor restriction on modifications as full on ND. However, viewed through Special:Undelete File:Isaac Asimov on Throne.png is empty and File:AsimovOnThrone.png has only the file text, not the file proper. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I downloaded the picture some days ago, just in case it would have been deleted on Commons. If the description page may be restored, subsequently I could upload the file again, or vice versa according to your instructions. Anyway, we should first understand if that license is compatible with Wikipedia.
- Please, which tag was adopted in the description page? I'm asking it because some derived files have been uploaded on Commons and on it.wiki (as far as I know) and they should be deleted if not compatible with our copyright policy. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- You can find the information about the tag on the file's talk page, which is preserved. It was a tag created especially for this file, given its unusual situation. If you check the logs, you can see that the tag was renamed and, after the file was transferred to Commons, this tag had no other use, so it was deleted for this reason a few years later. I suppose it can be re-created. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- Good move to have kept a copy. The file can certainly be on Wikipedia. Preferably as a free file, as it seems it had been considered by Wikipedia, but even if not, it can be on Wikipedia anyway as non-free content, at least to illustrate the work of the author in the article Rowena Morrill. So, the file should be restored anyway. And if Jo-Jo Eumerus is right when saying that the file has mysteriously disappeared, then you might as well upload your saved copy. Preferably under the same filename (File:AsimovOnThrone.png) to avoid confusion. The only question is to decide what tag to use. It's probably better if someone restores the description page as soon as possible, but I suppose the older version of it can still be restored even if you reupload the file in the meantime. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- Technically, they demand an Invariant Section consisting of the words 'Rowena Morrill' which apparently renders the license non-free but I am not convinced we need to treat such a minor restriction on modifications as full on ND. However, viewed through Special:Undelete File:Isaac Asimov on Throne.png is empty and File:AsimovOnThrone.png has only the file text, not the file proper. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- 1. Did you look at the filename it had on en.wikipedia? 2. The author required attribution to her name, which does not make the work non-free. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- For some reason the local file appears to be gone, and the license template apparently indicated a non-free license. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- On 21 november 2016, the file was deleted because GFDL-IS is a license no more accepted for Commons. Evidence about the license should be in the description page of the original file here on en.wiki. On Commons, it was accepted the declaration of user Xiong about the email that he exchanged with Rowena Morrill and that was reported on the first of the two Deletion requests on 22 January 2010. Jameslwoodward recognised later he was wrong about the "absence of evidence of permission from the painter" here. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Hence, a way for restoring the picture could be:
- Re-create Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants, with the content present here: Commons:Template:GFDL-IS.
- Upload the file with the previous denomination: File:AsimovOnThrone.png
- Can I proceed? Thanks. --Harlock81 (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's one possibility, yes. Maybe an admin could look how the template was worded on Wikipedia. It is plausible that it was something like the Commons template. However, that would be in one of the versions of the Commons template from before it was modified by a user who commented that he did not like it. That said, it would be better if more users would comment here and we could get a good consensus about the best status to attribute to this file: free file or non-free content. It seems that it was considered free on Wikipedia, so it could be assumed to still be the case and the file could be restored on Wikipedia as it was before it was transferred, but there's also the possibility to tag it as non-free content instead, depending on which solution Wikipedia users think is best. The idea would be to choose a consensual and stable solution. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ok. Thank you. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- IMHO, you can upload the file now, with the tag you think is best. We can change or adjust the details later. The wording of the declaration by the author (still available now on the description page of the cropped version) should be mentioned somewhere. A Do not move tag or an equivalent can be added. In a 2005 discussion on Commons, the uploader provided more information. It seems it was the uploader who asked for the license with invariant. The author would probably have accepted another license. An ideal solution would still be to try to contact the author (eleven years later) and ask if she would grant a more usual free license. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants was a non-free license, because it involves a "no derivatives" element in form of restrictions on modification that the invariant sections clause add. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- IMHO, you can upload the file now, with the tag you think is best. We can change or adjust the details later. The wording of the declaration by the author (still available now on the description page of the cropped version) should be mentioned somewhere. A Do not move tag or an equivalent can be added. In a 2005 discussion on Commons, the uploader provided more information. It seems it was the uploader who asked for the license with invariant. The author would probably have accepted another license. An ideal solution would still be to try to contact the author (eleven years later) and ask if she would grant a more usual free license. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ok. Thank you. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's one possibility, yes. Maybe an admin could look how the template was worded on Wikipedia. It is plausible that it was something like the Commons template. However, that would be in one of the versions of the Commons template from before it was modified by a user who commented that he did not like it. That said, it would be better if more users would comment here and we could get a good consensus about the best status to attribute to this file: free file or non-free content. It seems that it was considered free on Wikipedia, so it could be assumed to still be the case and the file could be restored on Wikipedia as it was before it was transferred, but there's also the possibility to tag it as non-free content instead, depending on which solution Wikipedia users think is best. The idea would be to choose a consensual and stable solution. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hence, a way for restoring the picture could be:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Curiously, the talk page of the original upload here is still available at: File talk:AsimovOnThrone.png and refers to the email correspondence. It may assist is refining the issue, or not. However, an email to the artist may well clear this up. ww2censor (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Excuse my insistence, but we have a file that is usefull to illustrate the articles about Isaac Asimov and Rowena Morrill; a file whose use on Wikipedia was allowed by Rowena Morrill, yet imposing some conditions. What license tag should be used for it?
- If Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants is the better choice, can it be restored? Since the template was created for this file and was deleted, because unused, when the file was moved to Commons. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Since you were involved earlier in the discussion, would you consider undeleting the page text of File:AsimovOnThrone.png (which still has the email correspondence on the talk page) and the non-free license that it relies upon at Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants so that Harlock81 can upload his saved version of the file? —RP88 (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, do you have a non-free use rationale available? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have never seen the image and don't know how Harlock81 intends to use it, so I can't comment on whether it is actually possible to write an appropriate non-free use rationale. I just figured that the following strategy would work to resolve the issue:
- Undelete the page text of File:AsimovOnThrone.png which apparently used Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants and may (or may not) include an old non-free use rationale in its history once undeleted. I suggested File:AsimovOnThrone.png because it still has the email correspondence on the talk page.
- Undelete the non-free license that it relies upon at Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants.
- Harlock81 uploads his image to File:AsimovOnThrone.png and adds a non-free use rationale for the page on which he wishes to use the image.
- Since the original content of an undeleted Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants and File:AsimovOnThrone.png may be out of date with regards to current guidelines, I'll update these as necessary.
- If it is apparent that a valid non-free use rationale can't be written, I'll throw a delete template to the image and ask for the re-deletion of the template.
- Otherwise, if everything is good, I'll move File:AsimovOnThrone.png (and its old talk page) to what appears to be the preferred name of File:Isaac Asimov on Throne.png.
- Sound good to you? —RP88 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- I realize your question is for Jo-Jo Eumerus. But I just want to mention that I think point 6 would not be a good idea. The present filename is fine. Moving files around unnecessarily makes things more difficult to check in the future. It also tends to separate the file history from the file original upload log. The matter might already be a little difficult to follow for some new users. The situation will be better without an additional complication. Please leave the file where it is, if possible. Points 1 to 5 are ok. The order of points 1 to 4 is not an obligation. It would help if points 1 and 2 were done first, but technically they're optional. The essential points 3 and 4 can be done. Unless the file can be retrieved from somewhere else, the only thing that needs to be done by Harlock81 is point 3. I think they could do it without need for further waiting. The rest can be updated by anyone. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Here I am. I didn't realize before that the picture must follow Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, since the GDFL-IS places it between non-free content files. I had mistakenly assumed that the license statement of Rowena Morrill would have allowed a freer use of the picture, as it has been till now.
- I would like to use the picture in the articles about Rowena Morrill, as an example of her artworks, and Isaac Asimov, as it's a common and rappresentative portrait of him. I do not have experience to judge whether these reasons are valid in according to Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Surely, the image is neither the most representative of the Morrill's work, nor the only significant portrait of Asimov which could be find on the web. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I realize your question is for Jo-Jo Eumerus. But I just want to mention that I think point 6 would not be a good idea. The present filename is fine. Moving files around unnecessarily makes things more difficult to check in the future. It also tends to separate the file history from the file original upload log. The matter might already be a little difficult to follow for some new users. The situation will be better without an additional complication. Please leave the file where it is, if possible. Points 1 to 5 are ok. The order of points 1 to 4 is not an obligation. It would help if points 1 and 2 were done first, but technically they're optional. The essential points 3 and 4 can be done. Unless the file can be retrieved from somewhere else, the only thing that needs to be done by Harlock81 is point 3. I think they could do it without need for further waiting. The rest can be updated by anyone. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have never seen the image and don't know how Harlock81 intends to use it, so I can't comment on whether it is actually possible to write an appropriate non-free use rationale. I just figured that the following strategy would work to resolve the issue:
- Well, do you have a non-free use rationale available? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Since you were involved earlier in the discussion, would you consider undeleting the page text of File:AsimovOnThrone.png (which still has the email correspondence on the talk page) and the non-free license that it relies upon at Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants so that Harlock81 can upload his saved version of the file? —RP88 (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Is File:Moveon logo.png a case of {{PD-logo}}?
File:Moveon logo.png is currently treated as non-free content, though the logo seems to consist entirely of text. Given that MoveOn.org appears to be of US origin, is it possible that the logo would fall under {{PD-logo}}? --Elegie (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
my own account
this work is completely my own account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarappanghelliah (talk • contribs) 07:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Kumarappanghelliah: What is your media copyright question. —teb728 t c 08:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- They are commenting on the bottom four files here I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
please help me with the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarappanghelliah (talk • contribs) 13:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Kumarappanghelliah: You need to edit the file pages and add copyright tags; see Wikipedia:File copyright tags. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Fixing Copyright and Licensing Information
I made an addition on the Ribonuclease III page and added a picture of a Ribonuclease III (the yellow one). I received a message on my talk page about some missing information in terms of the copyright and licensing of the picture. I am not sure what extra information I need as well as how I should format it in the editing process so that it fixes the problem. Could anyone lend a hand in solving this? Burgjane15 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- That picture was copied from an issue of the journal Molecular Cell; that was a blatant copyright violation, and the image has been deleted. I will remove the link from the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Orangemike: Which issue? The article @Burgjane15: linked to in the file does not contain the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- If the image did not appear in that issue (I was not going to take the time to download two fat .pdfs of supplemental content), it should not have been cited for the illustration. As it is, there was nothing else to source the image, and I took the poster's word that they ganked the image from that article, quite possibly with the best of intentions. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Orangemike: Which issue? The article @Burgjane15: linked to in the file does not contain the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleting incorrect image - request from original uploader
- Back in July, I uploaded a Public Domain image of a mountain (File:Hampton Butte, Oregon (USFS).jpg) in Wikimedia Commons. I just realized that image is of a different mountain, Glass Buttes not Hampton Butte. How do I get the image deleted so I can reload it under the correct name, or can the name be changed to “File:Glass Buttes, Lake County, Oregon”?--Orygun (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)