Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/July

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

All of the images uploaded and put on this page have been tagged as own works, which they probably are not (if they are works of the author--Ilyich--in question). I'm not terribly sure what happens next...Do I nominate for deletion? Re-tag? Any help is appreciated. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 12:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be right so I've notified the commons user problems page because the images are hosted there. A deletion request has been started here if you want to comment. ww2censor (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help and directions :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I have created a page about a living person. He has an image for which he has the copyright and he has specifically requested that I use this image in the article. He has given me permission to use the image.

What do I need to do to satisfy copyright rules and upload it onto the page?

Please can you reply to my "talk" page

Thanks Karendawes Karendawes (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We need a lot more freedom, than giving you permission to use the image. An acceptable license to grant is the CC-BY-SA-3.0, and the procedure to follow is in WP:PERMIT, as this person will have to prove that they do grant permission in writing, and also provide some sort of proof that they own the copyright, eg if it is apicture of themselves that someone else took. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I use [this file] on the Dutch Wikipedia? On this page: International Invitational Hockey Tournament Londen 2012. I really don't how to act with logo's.

Thank you, Eoosterhof (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Legally you could use it under fair use on an appropriate article, but you will have to check with nl wikipedia policies that we here do not know. I can't find an interwikilink from WP:fair use. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use does not give the policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

See m:Non-free content: Dutch Wikipedia does not allow fair use files. In order to use the file on Dutch Wikipedia, you need to obtain permission from the copyright holder, see WP:CONSENT. Note that nl:Special:Listfiles contains almost no files, so it seems that Dutch Wikipedia has the same image licensing requirements as Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. I ran across File:Georgia Salpa.jpg today which is being used in Georgia Salpa. Its description page on Commons says it is licensed under CC-BY-SA, yet the summary says that it was previously published in Life Magazine. Can both be true, or was the image incorrectly tagged? Thanks for your input. Braincricket (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Momo has to be the actual photographer, and have retained his rights, and be willing to license this photo under one of our acceptable licenses. With all due good faith, I am skeptical about this, based on my lifelong experience with both professional photographers and magazine publishers. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

See the logo at myrunnings.com. It is primarily text, does the circle around the R make this copyrightable? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd play it safe and call it non-free - the curved parts leading to the circle take it outside of simple text and shapes. Still usable for a logo of that company, just need to mark it as such. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This picture is being held up from being included on the appropriate Wikipedia page because I could not supply its origin. I have learned that the original of this photograph is now in the possession of the Perris Valley Museum Historical Archives, located in Perris, California. It was created in San Diego about 1880. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiljensen (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

re File:Ramanujan.jpg

There's a disagreement at Talk:Srinivasa_Ramanujan#Lede_Image concerning whether an image is a potential copyright violation. The image under discussion is a 1917 passport photo of the article's subject. There's also a discussion going on here concerning the same matter (but only one other person there weighed in). It would be helpful if someone knowledgeable could help us determine whether the image is usable. Justin W Smith (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the "old" image (the one at issue) was removed by another editor on Talk:Srinivasa_Ramanujan#Lede_Image because of the concern. Justin W Smith (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The image under question is not the 1917 passport photo; it is an image used on a 1962 Indian stamp. There is a side issue whether a 1937 photograph of the 1917 passport (with embossing) is just a copy of the 1917 image, but the "good" image is not the passport photo and is not even a photograph. Glrx (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to upload an image for the Wikipedia page, giffgaff. The image can be found here: http://ubuntuone.com/12eMppCgByaAbzEwnMwW14

It is an image of the phone company's sim card, as the one that is currently included in the article is out of date, and does not have the current design. The only problem is that I do not know which license to choose whilst uploading. The image of the sim card that is included in the article at the moment is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0, but surely due to the inclusion of giffgaff's logo, this is not the case?

Thanks for any help --Jackfifield (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am starting on the assumption that giffgaff's logo is simply that text-based string. If that is the case, the logo fails the threshold of originality that is necessary for artwork to be copyrighted. (In this case, it consists of text in a font, and has no other artistic features). For that, we can assume it is free.

That's only the logo. Now you have the actual sim card, and this is where things get iffy. If the card had no other decorations beyond the logo, a photo of it would definitely be fine to upload as a free image. But the decorations on that card front (the rounded squares, etc.) are edging past the threshold of originality (particularly that heart-shape they make). I'd almost argue that if you popped the sim card out and took a photo of that , where there are much fewer squares and thus less approaching original art, that would be treated as a free image while the larger card itself would be considered non-free. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there not anyway that it could fall under Fair Use? I could try to obtain permission from giffgaff themselves, but it could be tricky as they have many different ways to try to contact them, none of which would probably get me to the right person --jackfifield (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think that what a sim card is (from any vendor) can be done via existing free imagery, and an image that may have copyrightable elements on here would not be needed per WP:NFCC. I note that the current article image of the sim card is possible a problem as its marked free but I don't think it is (due to the artwork, not logo). But when it comes to things like threshold of originality, there's a lot of boundaries, and I'm only giving my take on it. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Myself, I'd be inclined to say just label the old one as to its approximate date; or don't bother with any image whatsoever. It's not important to the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

please see File:Charbel_Nahas.png, which user:Zalali claims as a photo taken by himself ( no meaningful EXIF). It looks very much like a cropped screen grab from this conference video Charbel Nahas at AUB Part 1/6 from approx 4:52 onwards. Youtube uploader is Chab Nahas official channel, with videos noted to be taken by www.alberthphotography.com regards 94.195.187.69 (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a picture copied from an old library book published in the 1920's of Fred T. Perris who has been dead since 1917. I can't get through the welter of Wikipedia regulations to determine whether or not it is in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiljensen (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Which image are you talking about? All images uploaded here and on the commons should have a copyright tag attached to them showing its copyright status. ww2censor (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean you want to upload it? Assuming it's published in the U.S., it's public domain if published before 1923, or if copyright was not marked or renewed (which is rather complicated)—see commons:Commons:Licensing#United States and links there for details. —innotata 20:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone know the copyright status of the currency of Bermuda? The Bermuda Monetary Authority does not indicate anything other than needing to obtain permission for reuse and various restrictions on reuse. Both non-free and free-licensed images of Bermudian currency have been uploaded before. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 16:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in clarifying copyright questions!

I want to show in a Wikipedia article I am writing photographs taken by my late father, for which my sister and I retain the copyright. I want to allow free (fair) use of the images in this article alone, but not give permission or authorization for free use of the same images not in this article. What issues might I encounter with doing this? And, should I indicate a copyright on the photos or not?

Thank you for your comments and ideas. Michael Olwyler — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldImages (talk • contribs) 03:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

All uploaded images must have a copyright tag attached and without it an image will be deleted, so please don't do that. We only accept freely licenced images, so as the heirs you must decide if that is acceptable to you or not. Free and fair-use are not the same thing; on Wikipedia free means that anyone can use it for anything (anywhere and even commercial use) while our policy for fair-use is much stricter than the legal understanding per WP:NFCC and your images will not pass the policy guidelines. In order to use your images you can release them under one of the very slightly restrictive Creative Commons licence that requires attribution. This is a list of all the CC licences we allow. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page for some of the wider copyright issues people encounter. ww2censor (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I want to upload an image of Maya Arulpragasam to the "M.I.A. artist" article. Versace released an image of the artist at the event on their Facebook page. I believe the picture is promotional and therefore could be used. The link to the set of images is here https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151889974760176.873378.260751060175&type=1

Is it OK to use this image of Maya Arulprgasam from the Versace Facebook page? The reason I want to use this particular image is because I want to put it in the fashion section of her article and it showcases this fashion because she is wearing Versace clothing. Any additional information would be helpful as this is my first time considering uploading and using an image in an article. Thanks. Headphones99 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Contemporary promotional images need explicit releases under what Wikipedia considers to be "free licenses", and in cases like this, where no such license is mentioned, it's not safe. Even something like "Free for any reuse" isn't enough, because we need an image to be available for modifications. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to upload an image using the GNU license and don't quite understand everything I need to do for this to be possible. What exactly does the statement "The license statement can be found online at" mean? Does it mean that I simply need to add a link to the the GNU license statement, or do I need a link from a personal site that states that my images fall under this license? Any help would be very much appreciated. Neochichiri11 (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Normally for this license you would have to include the full text of the license, but you can just have a link to the text if you are online. If you have published this elsewhere on a web site, then please add the license to that site to prove that you really do have the permission to do that. Here at Wikipedia or commons you can use the templates to give the license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! Neochichiri11 (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

In a Did You Know nomination discussion, the question has been raised as to whether a logo is copyrighted and needs a fair use tag. As the uploader and nominator, and based on some research, it seems to me the logo in question is not copyrightable, and it has been tagged as such, as the logo is a combination of copyright free logos criteria #2: "a sequence of letters or written words" and #3: "simple geometric shapes".

Here's a list of logos that are tagged ineligible for copyright: Blizzard Entertainment, Electronic Arts, Maxis, Valve, Atari, Nintendo, and Capcom.

Meanwhile, here are some logos that are tagged as fair use: Firaxis, Stardock, Ensemble, Ubisoft.

I think it's an interesting question, and worth figuring out, if possible, where the cut-off is in terms of simplicity for copyright ineligibility. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 11:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

From my experience at Commons I'd say that this particular logo is actually not eligible for PD-textlogo. Anything that looks remotely 3-dimensional and that doesn't consist of plain 2-d typefaces and 2-d geometric shapes is usually thought to be copyrightable. See also Stardock's examples above. De728631 (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There is unfortuntely no hard cutoff, as the only place where the threshold of originality can be tried is in a court of law. It is always better to play it safe and mark a logo non-free if you are unsure otherwise. As to File:Inscape-logo.jpg, yes, that's copyrightable; the fading aspects and use of transparency put it beyond simple shapes and fonts. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the answers and explanations. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd get some advice on an image before uploading. I want to scan a higher quality image for an article on Paulding Farnham I'm working on (still in sandbox) to replace a poor quality but PD image. The image was published in 2000 as part of John Loring's book on Farnham, but the picture is of Farnham's 1889 exhibitor's photo ID pass for the Paris Exposition Universelle (the photo [1]). Is this old photo regarded as a previously unpublished/private collection photo or since it technically was exhibited in 1889 can it be uploaded? No author is credited in book and I assume the picture was taken in France or in the US shortly before the Exposition. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 20:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I've never seen one, there have been a number of deletion requests today for images like this one, based on the rationale: ". A copyright notice could have been placed on the back of the photo."

Another one so tagged, here, is typical in that it has all the relevant details, including the name of the film and studio on the front. The only information printed on the reverse of such obvious publicity photos that I've come across are film details, as in this example. Hence, a new rule is possibly being created, as already noted on my earlier question relating to the Commons, which is repeatedly deleting such images that don't also show the back.

In any case, these tags, based on such "remote possibilities," would, IMO, fly in the face of logic and the established law, besides the common use of such star "publicity photos," as noted in film still. It would actually imply an industry-wide oxymoronic marketing system, where studios spend millions to photograph stars to give away in press kits to get them free exposure, while at the same time sticking a copyright notice on them to make sure they are not copied without permission or payment first. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If the question is valid and there is no clear answer, maybe someone can try to slow down the multiple deletion requests pending based on that rationale until there is some consensus, at least in the EN/WP. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

In such cases baring any other evidence (eg other examples that show the copyright is frequently printed on the back), I would work under the assumption of good faith that the uploader is not lying about the nature of the image, and thus the evidence that the back lacks copyright is not required. That might not fly on commons where absolute proof of free-ness is generally necessary, but I can us using that on en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the user already has had lots of images deleted on Commons for exactly the same reason. See Commons:User talk:Denniss#Verification requested for multiple images deleted without recourse for details. When the uploader learnt that Commons doesn't want copyright problems, it seems that the user tried to export the copyright problems to English Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, rather than continue to export the images to Commons, which defers to the strictest "possible" international interpretation, I asked above ("Adding PD images to EN WP vs. commons"), if I could simply keep them here so at least EN/WP users can benefit.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's wrong to mention this, please delete my post. We hope (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how a copyright notice has to prevent redistribution or require payment. Remember we generally disallow such promotional photographs nowadays when the copyright clearly hasn't expired because we're aware although the copyright holder may allow redistribution to some extent, they may not necessarily follow the conditions of a free licence, e.g. they may not allow all possible derivatives and possibly even some forms of commercial use. In other words, I don't see why you think a copyright notice could have been printed which allowed redistribution. How likely this is I don't know. As for Masem's comment, I may be willing to AGF if it was actually a matter of lying. But I'm confused, if the uploader has access to the original photo, can't they just upload the back? If they don't actually have access to the original photo, then I don't see it's a matter of lying, the uploader may simply be unaware. Nil Einne (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What country's copyright would apply to works published in the Dutch East Indies (modern Indonesia) during the Japanese occupation (1942-1945)? If Japanese or Indonesian, visual works from this period would be public domain, but if Dutch law applied works would possibly still be copyrighted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether to ask this at the OTRS noticeboard or here, but ultimately decided here. According to File:PNHP poster.jpg, the file was expecting OTRS permission in November 2011. Despite this, if I understand the OTRS ticket numbering properly, nothing was received until February 2012 and that didn't actually confirm the copyright status so we're still waiting for evidence of permission now. Is this normal? I note that the image copyright info is confusing. It has a CC-by-SA 2.0 tag yet under permissions it says 'promotional; free to distribute' which doesn't sound like a clear cut case of CC-by-SA or for that matter a free licence. Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not permitted to reveal the specific details, but I can share the general sequence.

An email was received at OTRS in February with a statement of permission. However, as is often the case, the permission did not use the prescribed format. Even in those cases, if the permissions statement is clear enough, we can process it. In this case, the permission statement was not sufficient and OTRS agent sent a response, in February with a boilerplate response telling them what was needed, and providing a ink to suggested wording. No further communication has occurred.

It would only be my speculation, but one possibility is that the recipient glanced at the boilerplate and thought it was an acknowledgment, rather than a statement that it wasn't sufficient. The item is marked closed, meaning we are waiting for them, but they may not realize this.SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a note to the uploader, but I see the uploader is blocked, so that doesn't sound helpful.SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the best place to post, but I wanted to warn that there is a copyright review in progress on Commons which will result in the deletion of probably 95% of the tens of thousands of files to be reviewed. The review is necessary due to a recent German court case, where it was decided that § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG only applies for literary works (Sprachwerke) and not for works of the visual arts (Werke der bildenden Kunst), which means a number of Commons PD templates are no longer correct. This review is being done via commons:Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, and files are being placed temporarily in commons:Category:German stamps review delete. As the largest fair use project, it would make sense for English Wikipedia to try to "rescue" files that need to be deleted for use on a fair use basis here (other fair use projects can then copy from here later on). Is there any good way to organise this?

Also, although most of the affected files on Commons originally came from German Wikipedia, there are some English Wikipedia PD templates affected by the same ruling. I've found {{PD-German Empire stamps}} and {{East German Post}} (both now invalid; not in use by any files right now) and {{PD-GermanGov}} (still valid for some uses but not all the ones we thought; about a dozen transclusions). There's also {{PD-Coa-Germany}} which I'm not sure about. Rd232 ^talk 22:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My reading would say that unless they fall into the PD via age, we (at en.wiki) would also be treating these as non-free. If that is the case, we should see if its possible to get a list of which images are used in en.wiki - hopefully small - and do as you say, rescue those that are being used, though I would say to rescue them first, then ask questions if they truly meet the NFCC later. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed the stamp templates for deletion since they aren't used for any files anyway, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 10. Commons requires files to be both {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} (or {{PD-URAA}}) and {{PD-old-70}}, but English Wikipedia doesn't have the {{PD-old-70}} requirement, so it might also be possible to save some files that way. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've posed a number of copyright questions to the Commons village pump, but there is little response. Assuming that there is no resulting clarification about some informally disputed deletions, am I allowed to instead upload the images to the English WP, naturally using valid licensing? Although most of the images deleted there are of U.S. origin and clearly PD here, some editors in the Commons prefer to go by the strictest international interpretations, and either ignore or minimize U.S. copyright law. In one such image, for example, the admin cited what they thought were EU rules, simply brushing off the U.S. law. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as copyright is concerned: if an image is public domain in the US, it may be uploaded locally regardless of its copyright status anywhere else. Just bear in mind that the scope of commons is broader then en. Files uploaded locally should typically be uploaded with the intent to use them in a at least one specific article/page. You may also want to tag them so they aren't copied back to commons and deleted. Monty₈₄₅ 01:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The images would probably deleted here as well as the only proof for the {{PD-US-no notice}} license is your vague description and claim of publicity photo without copyright notice without providing sufficient evidence for this claim. --Denniss (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Many comparable publicity pictures' description pages have been updated with reliable sourcing for the PD status of the entire class of image, so if the images deleted at Commons were uploaded here, they would not be subject to deletion. Do you have access to copies of these images that could be uploaded here? Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If you mean me, I mostly have only the final cropped image which overwrote the original uncropped images showing borders and sometimes the reverse side, ie. this one, I'm trying to salvage. But I don't have any of the original description text and source links as they were summarily deleted. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The images I deleted at Commons just had a vague statement that they are publicity images issued by studios together with a link to a site explaining the copyright situation. What they failed to have was the option to verify this claim as copyright notices may have been on the back or in the cropped-out borders. That's why many of these images uploaded to Commons under this special copyright excemption have been uploaded with an image showing the back of the photo in question to ensure there was no sufficient notice or none at all. --Denniss (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly: this image, for example, had both the front and back, since it was one where there was a film description included on the back side. I believe that most, if not all the images you summarily deleted showed the full uncropped border in the original uploaded photo. I typically crop out and clean up images and re-upload them. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• The person making this request is the subject of a CCI which is being conducted across Wikipedia and Commons. While he has contributed many good images, he has unfortunately had some sloppy documentation/research practices that have resulted in the deletion of a good many images, both here and there. For example, he uploaded Commons:File:James Garner-publicity.jpg with a claim of pre-1978, without evidence cited as the upload source didn't say anything about a date. It took me 30 seconds of looking on the web to find the same image on the The Washington Post's website indicating that the picture was from 1979. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:James Garner-publicity.jpg. He uploaded Commons::File:Eisenstaedt-Monroe-Life-1953.jpg with a claim that Life did not renew copyright before 1985, which is untrue. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eisenstaedt-Monroe-Life-1953.jpg. Commons::File:Lumet-Life-1953.jpg was uploaded with the same faulty premise, but Wikiwatcher was content with the deletion because he uploaded it here under "fair use." See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lumet-Life-1953.jpg. More information may be visible at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for noting, "for the record," my previous errors, ie. the "Life magazine" one: discussed here. What is also worth "noting for the record," is that I explained the error when discovered:

"I think I found out the source of the problem. The online search for "Life magazine" showed all their issues and renewal dates beginning in 1985 through the present. However, a search for just the word "Life" showed up the rest, once you go through 1,350 records, most of which are only called "Life", but not related to the magazine. Whoda thought? I naturally assumed the first search found all the ones renewed. I'm also aware that Life magazine stopped publishing a number of times and apparently starting up again recently, and thought that might have been related.

"FWIW, this matter could have been dealt with in a cleaner way. Without a renewal, the image would have been PD. So rather than all this bad faith attitude and innuendo being posted first, why didn't someone just find the renewal, post it, and say how they found it." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I realize that it may distress you, but it's important to note that there are reasons for your uploads to be suspect. This is not a matter of some arbitrary content removal on Commons which should be remedied by moving the content here without further review. You have, unfortunately, uploaded content on both projects that do not meet copyright requirements. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you implying that the back of every photo is required, regardless of any actual copyright search? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at the photo: File:George Maharis 1975.jpg. It would take more research to determine copyright (or public domain) status. Copyright status = Public domain status, right? --George Ho (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course it would. But that assumes the online source scanned and uploaded the back of the photo, making a search unnecessary. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue being pointed out is that when you, Wikiwatcher1, specifically are the uploader, due to past issues with copyright and uploads, that the AGF assumption can't apply, and they are expecting that if you do upload a image with the claim "no printed copyright" you provide the front and back to show that it is true. On the other hand, a user that has an established history of uploading images without problems, the statement "no copyright found on back of photo" will likely not trip any issues, though certainly it can't hurt to upload the reverse of the photo to prove themselves correct. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The search is necessary; see 1909 Act. Under old Act, a photographer can correct mistakes, and other copies might have had copyright notices. Unfortunately, no registration is done to notify mistakes. --George Ho (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded this image a while ago as non-free with a rationale. Does it meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection, or is it a PD textlogo? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it likely fails originality, thus could be tagged PD. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I tagged it so. Perhaps it should be transferred to Commons and a higher resolution version be created. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Transferred a file from the German Wikipedia to Commons, (see Wikipedia:Help desk#Transferring PD textlogo file to Commons) and that one is now being used in the article, as it is of superior quality compared to this file. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Would a full fair use really be necessary? It just seems like overkill, since the Mojang EULA says this: "You may create, use and distribute videos of you playing or using our Game for any lawful reason provided that you don't make any money from them." Which says that this is is for non-commercial use only.

But then also this: "You may also make money using videos and screen-shots if it is covered by so called “fair dealing” or “fair use” exceptions to copyright, such as where it is for criticism and review, reporting current affairs etc. In each case, you will still need to add appropriate additional content and credits where applicable." Which puts the page as it is now.

BUT THEN ALSO this: "..so feel free to make requests – and if you are unsure about anything you may or may not do, don't do it unless you get an OK from us first." and this: "In addition to the specifics set out below, where we do allow you to do something you will always need to add a credit as follows: Minecraft ®/TM & © 2009-2012 Mojang / Notch" Which would get the image probably deleted since it doesn't have that notice.

So what would be the fate of all of the Minecraft images? Delete or fair use? Longbyte1 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

They're basically non-free images (the language used does not put them into a license compatible with CC-BY-SA.) They need to be used within reason and meet NFCC. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What a move from Mojang. I thought they'd allow their screenshots to be used freely with attribution. Longbyte1 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically it is this line: "You may also make money using videos and screen-shots if it is covered by so called “fair dealing” or “fair use” exceptions to copyright" that causes the problem. CC-BY-SA stipulates that as long as attribution is provided, any type of reuse can be done (monetary or not) regardless if it would be under fair use or not. Again, this is not saying we can't use Minecraft screenshots, just that they would be treated and handled as NFCC. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you transfer on Commons? It consists of simple geometric shapes and text.--79.32.156.121 (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use justifications: see Commons:fair use. Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses are not accepted either. So, unfortunately, no, it can't be transferred to commons. Braincricket (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the IP has a point. But it is hard to tell if there is some sort of design in the background. Does {{PD-textlogo}} apply? Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You might be right about {{PD-textlogo}}. It does look like there's something abstract expressionist in the background, though. And the art community seems to think Barnett Newman's paintings have crossed the threshold of originality, so I don't know. Actually, I only responded because I thought this was cut-and-dry based on the current licensing of the photo. I'm going to defer to more experienced editors. Regards. Braincricket (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I did some more looking it appears that the circle we can see in the image is just an imprint of the record. See this one which is just clean black. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, it's not clean black, but it has non-black bits elsewhere from what this one does. Even better evidence to show that the non-black is a scanning artifact. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and tagged it with {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I just undid my edit, but I realized the image might be eligible for deletion. We don't have enough information to determine who owns the image. No source or author was given. If this was taken from somewhere on the internet, wouldn't the image be copyrightable even though the album is not? That would make this eligible for deletion under {{Di-replaceable fair use}}, correct? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this book cover really copyrightable? It's not an artistic dust jacket but it consists merely of plain typefaces and a unicolour background. I'd say we don't need a fair use rationale for this one but could tag it with {{PD-text}} instead. De728631 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, so I have moved it to Commons. Although Tolkien was British, this appears to be a US book, so we don't need to bother about any {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} stuff. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! De728631 (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Cornell's website says that the URAA (i.e. files currently in the public domain in their source country, but were not in 1996) made the copyright term 95 years after publication. Thus I was expecting to find a tag which says that the file is a foreign work and 95 years have passed since publication. Is there one? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Before Copyright Act of 1998, the term was 75 years, and all other foreign works made before 1923 have expired. You can search works that were previously published before 1923. --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain further? Which term? Also template:PD-1923-abroad (deprecated on commons) suggests that files between 1909 and 1923 might be problematic - which they wouldn't be if there was a 75 year rule. I have a book by John Buchan (died 1940), published in 1909. What would the correct licence be? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, all terms, including of URAA, before Extension. As for the Buchan book from 1909, the book is out of copyright, obviously, because it was published before 1923. The pictures included in this book must be out of copyright since 1984 in the US, as well. You must, as well, upload this to Commons. As for licensing, in Commons, PD-1923 and PD-1996. As for the author, he died in 1940, so it is out of copyright in UK (and Canada) because rules are, respectively, 70 years in UK (and 50 years in Canada) after death. --George Ho (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Or, if text-only, then scan and upload everything to Project Gutenberg website, or copy all text to Wikisource. --George Ho (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"obviously, because it was published before 1923"? It was published in the UK? Why have the PD-1923-abroad template then? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

PD-1923 applies also to "Works published outside the U.S. before 1923, except possibly in the 9th Circuit, then before July 1, 1909. PD-US-1923-abroad is specifically for the English Wikipedia whose servers are located in the US, so such images may be not be used outside the Unites States when the work is still copyrighted elsewhere. Commons, however, serves all Wikimedia projects worldwide, so a work must also be public domain in its country of origin. That's why there is no PD-US-1923-abroad over there. De728631 (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand how this all works in general, I've uploaded plenty of works in the past. But as we know, the URAA may have returned foreign works that were in the public domain in the US to copyright. I know the file is PD in the UK inow, but it wasn't in 1996. Thus it was one of the caught files by the URAA. So our answer must come from the URAA, which is a 95 year after publication point. Where am I going wrong? We don't seem to have the right templates in place. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Cornell exempts pre-1923 works from the URAA, fine – is this a flat basis? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Such a tag should not have a use before circa 2019, because the works published before 1923 generally get one of the PD-1923 tags. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

About the 1909-1922 problem: there is some theory that publications outside the United States, and in a language other than English, don't count as "publications". Some examples:

• Let's say that a book was published in French in France in 1910, and it was later published in English in the United States in 1911. According to this theory, United States law says that the first publication of this book was in 1911. Thus, according to this theory, the copyright expired 75 years after 1911, not 75 years after 1910.
• Let's say that a book was published in French in France in 1910 and that it hasn't been published anywhere since then. According to this theory, the book is currently unpublished, so it may still be copyrighted in the United States, since the copyright term for unpublished books is either life+70 years or creation+120 years.

There was some case where a US court said that this theory is possible in some parts of the United States, but possibly not in other parts of the United States. The general assumption on Wikipedia and on Commons is that this theory doesn't apply and that all works published before 1923 are in the public domain, regardless of where they were published. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Grandiose, what language is that 1909 book? --George Ho (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

English. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

First published in English, right? Not any other language? What title? --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, only in the UK and I don't believe the US within 30 days (it's a history of Brasenose College, Oxford). But I've pretty much answered my question; the only part really remaining is why pre-1923 (or possibly 1909, a separate issue) works don't fall under the URAA. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The Copyright Act, in its URAA-related provisions, attributes to those works that were published outside of the U.S. the same copyright term that applies to the works published in the U.S. that complied with all the copyright formalities (notices, renewals) that were required by the U.S. Copyright Act [2]. It does not attribute to those works a longer copyright term than that. Such works published in the U.S. with copyright notice and renewal have a copyright term of 95 years after publication, unless they were published before 1923 [3]. So, the same term applies to the works that have a copyright "restored" by the URAA-related provisions. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this person is a fictional character. However, I have trouble finding an infobox image that truly represents a fictional character. Photo 1, Photo 2, and Photo 3 are surpassed by a free image of Ted Danson, already used in Casting section. Any other image? --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this image eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the bus film poster seen in this image ([[File:Pride & Prejudice London Bus.jpg]]) copyrighted? A query was raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pride & Prejudice (2005 film)/archive1. Thanks in advance for any help. Ruby 2010/2013 04:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• I just ended up taking the image out of the article. Ruby 2010/2013 04:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just for future reference, the concept you're looking for is called de mininis; it recognizes that we will sometimes unavoidably capture copyrighted works in photos but the amount, size, or focus of the overall photograph is not set on that work to ignore the issue of the copyright.
• An example that I know is ok is File:Shibuya tokyo.jpg - while there are the copyrighted posters as ads in the BG, they aren't the focus of the photo and they are small enough to not be easy for reuse, thus the photo is still considered free.
• The problem in your case is that that photo is clearly focused on the promo ad; the ad is certainly copyright, and the photo is focused on the ad, so that really isn't a "free" photo and should be removed from commons. --MASEM (t) 05:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response, Masem. I'll remember that for the future. Ruby 2010/2013 05:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

hello,

in Polar Music Prize, I use the quotes on the website to indicate the reason of the awarding. Is this acceptable? Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 09:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you attributed the source and marked the quotes as such, this is totally acceptable. See also Wikipedia:Quotations. De728631 (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 13:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

(copied from a previous discussion at Village Dump): Except for the image being created in the application, shouldn't the screenshot be semi-free; therefore we can use {{Non-free Microsoft screenshot}}? (I mean, if the drawing's original, then it would be a CC drawing.) 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Is a photo of a 1st century CE handwritten text under copyright? The image is in the British Library collection, here [4] , and the British Library claims copyright on the image. It would be useful on the Birch bark manuscript and Gandhāran Buddhist Texts articles. First Light (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That is more a photograph of the scroll as a material object than a reproduction of the immaterial work inscribed on it. I think that photo would not be accepted on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. First Light (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this image pass the threshold of originality for copyright protection? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the brushstroke lettering appears to be only that and not an attempt to create something artistic in the negative space or overall, I would argue it fails originality (as there are plenty of brushstroke fonts one can get). --MASEM (t) 17:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

However, see Commons:COM:SIG#Japan. It says that calligraphy is copyrightable in Japan, so the logo might be unfree in the source country. The lettering is taken from File:Production I.G Logo.jpg and that image can't be {{PD-Japan-organization}} yet. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point: I would thus play it safe and consider non-free. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:UnclopediaOnWP.JPG - As the website is under a CC license (namely, BY NC SA 2.5), this image should use the appropriate template. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We treat creative commons material with a no commercial use restriction as non-free content. See WP:NONCOM for details. Monty₈₄₅ 02:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I added the NC disclaimer to the description page. I don't want anyone to be confused. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a page about the artist De Hirsh Margules. Margules started painting seriously in the 1920s, so there are very little to no public domain images of either Margules or his art. I am curious as to what images have been approved for display under such circumstances.

I attempted to include a self-portrait of Margules on the page, and was quickly rebuffed by Wikipedia. I had the permission of the owner of the image, but not of the estate of the artist. I was hoping the combination of permission from the copyright holder of the photograph plus a fair use rational would be enough, but apparently not.

I myself own what is purported to be a self-portrait of Margules. (It is certainly a portrait of Margules, but it is not signed on the canvas, and has the artist's name on the stretcher, but spelled differently than Margules typically spelled it. This leads me to believe that someone else may have painted the portrait, or else the person misspelling Margules name was the person preparing the stretcher). In any event, since I own the painting, but probably not the copyright to the painted image, would I be within my fair use rights under wikipedia rules to post a low resolution photograph of my painting? What about other images of the artist and his work not in the public domain?

Thanks, AdrianLesher (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As the tag on File:De hirsch margules self portrait small.jpg states, you are missing a copyright license template, which is required for works that are considered non-free. Normally the file uploader would present you with a choice, but if you don't use that you have to enter it yourself, from one of those listed at WP:ICT/FU. In this case you'd want {{Non-free 2D art}} (eg added on the file page as {{Non-free 2D art}}). Also, while you have most of what a non-free rationale would be, it might be useful (but not required) to format that into the template {{Non-free use rationale}}, to make it easy to track what information is what. Importantly, you do probably need a statement as to what the purpose of the image is (in this case, both as illustration of the person (as a self-portrait) and of their art style). Once you at least add the copyright tag, you can remove the notice tag and use the image on that artist's page. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a digital artist and I wish to help Wikipedia by providing illustrations (which I'm capable of doing) to any articles that are in need. But I have a concern relating to the copyright of such an image. Would that image still be under my copyright? NK (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You can retain any copyrights to your artwork as long as you allow it to be reused. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You'll find further useful guidance here at "Uploading a file you created". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

On the Presidential portrait page I downloaded and added a lot of high resolution Presidential portraits for various U.S. Presidents. I got all of those high resolution portraits from this site-- http://www.whitehouseresearch.org/assetbank-whha/action/viewHome. Is it legal for me to download high resolution Presidential portraits from this site and put them on Wikipedia? For the record, some other people did the same thing before I did it, so I'm assuming that it is legal. However, I just want to make sure. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As I believe you've been told elsewhere, each of these must be dealt with separately. Some of them are not public domain, and may be easily replaced with public-domain images. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The video of the commercial "Morning in America" at this website [5] gives credit to the Reagan Library. (Click CREDITS for the credit screen to display.) I'm 99% certain this is in the public domain via the Reagan Library, but I just wanted to make sure, as there are plenty more ads where this came from. Thanks! – Lionel ^(talk) 12:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think a 1984 video would be in the public domain? There is no evidence of that copyright status. ww2censor (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wishful thinking? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If I found a picture from a website that has no copyright and it is the only version of that picture, does that make it public domain? Lady Lotus (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No way! Under current laws, we must assume that it is copyrighted unless there is clear evidence otherwise. In other words, the default is to assume copyright protection. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Is de:Datei:UK PTC Logo.jpg under or over the threshold of originality in the United States? I'm not sure, and therefore want input from others. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 01:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say it was borderline (the graphic part to the left, that is)... I think we have to be cautious in such cases unfortunately. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware of the general fallacy of the "If NPS (National Park Service) -> US Fed -> PD" argument, yet one of the parks (Colonial National Historical Park) has released images in a repository under what appears to be a very free attribution license, which appears cover the works in that repository regardless of their underlying copyright status:

"We are pleased to offer images not only of these park resources, but also artwork inspired by the historic events that took place at Jamestown and Yorktown. All images posted are available for download as high resolution JPEG files and may be used without a copyright release from the National Park Service, but for commercial use a credit line reading "National Park Service, Colonial National Historical Park" is requested."(link to Colonial National Historical Park Photos and Multimedia page)

That license appears to be very broad and sufficiently free (all it asks for is a credit line in commercial works, i.e. attribution). What makes it tricky is that the artworks mentioned may or may not be copyrighted, insofar as the details of the relationship between the artists (who are still living) and the NPS is unclear. Further, it makes no mention of its permanence or the making of derivative works (either prohibiting or permitting). Thoughts? Is the license above sufficient for upload (or be translated into a standard more restrictive one such as CC-BY)? Or is a specific license request from the NPS needed? Thanks. Morgan Riley (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

On thing not covered is derivatives. If not specified it is like a CC-ND. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi was first published in the US in 1946. It was written by Paramahansa Yogananda, who died in 1952. There was a court case around 2000 concerning copyright issues. Some people in a discussion consider it to be public domain.

If we want to use an image of the book's cover or frontispiece, what licence would be applicable? Thanks - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the court concluded that "With regard to Yogananda's writings and spoken lectures, we hold that the works are not works for hire or the works of a corporate body, so that the common law copyrights did not vest in the church as a matter of law. We hold that there are triable issues with regard to the purported assignments and remand for further proceedings on those issues. We also hold that there is a triable issue regarding whether some of the photographs involved in this appeal were works for hire." I.e. photos of Yogananda taken by other persons are still likely to be copyrighted and if they are used on book covers, the safe way would be a fair use rationale. However, there is already File:Autobiography of a Yogi Current Book Cover.jpg so I for one don't see a need to add another cover image to any related article unless it is strikingly different from the one above. De728631 (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue appears to be that the image to which you link is that of a recent edition produced by an advocacy group, whereas the original edition was not. In other words, we are unnecessarily/unwittingly promotional. Furthermore, it is claimed that the edition whose cover is being depicted contains substantial text changes from that of 1946, allegedly because the advocacy group wishes to portray things in a certain manner. I have no idea if these claims are true and, of course, this is one of those "pseudo-religion" articles where all sorts of fireworks can happen. - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: my query relates to use of an image from 1946, not a more recent edition. - Sitush (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello all. I have a few questions related to this - a dispute over this has come to the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I am trying to help the involved editors find a compromise. We are trying to agree on which image should be used in the infobox of Autobiography of a Yogi. So far we have all agreed that File:Autobiography of a Yogi Current Book Cover.jpg is not the most neutral choice, but we are finding difficulty in choosing between File:Paramahansa Yogananda.jpg and an image of the 1st edition cover as seen at this eBay listing.

I had a look through the court case, and it does indeed look like the book is in the public domain. From my reading of it, the SRF doesn't have the copyright to the book now, as they weren't eligible to renew it even if they they could successfully claim that Yogananda assigned it to them. Technically, Yoganada's family could have still held the copyright, but they would have needed to renew it for it to still be valid, and according to Stanford's copyright database only the SRF attempted a renewal.

I agree with De728631 that the photographs of Yogananda might still be in copyright, however, if they were taken by the SRF employees mentioned in the court case. I'm not sure who took the photo of Yogananda in question, and if we could find that out it would certainly be helpful. I had a trawl around the web to try and find out, but I didn't come up with anything.

So, to my questions. If the book is in the public domain does that automatically place the photograph on its front cover in the public domain as well? And does that mean we can upload the 1st edition cover I linked to above with a public domain tag? Also, if it seems that the 1st edition cover might still be in copyright, would that mean that File:Paramahansa Yogananda.jpg would be in copyright too? I don't want to get caught out by WP:NFCC #1 when deciding which image to use. Any help would be much appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Note - I've also asked this question at the copyright board on Commons, as this message has been here a while with no reply. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have come across several books on Amazon that are made up exclusively of Wikipedia articles (some paraphrased slightly, some not). Some of these have provided no attribution to the contributors to those Wikipedia articles (of whom I am one), which is clearly a violation of the licenses those contributions were uploaded under. What can Wikipedia do to protect its contributors who are receiving nothing for their work while others are stealing it and selling it off as their own? – PeeJay 19:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for more information; most of the ones on Google that come up again and again Wikipedia:Republishers as I recall do comply, although we do still feel a bit hard done by (they're almost all excessively priced). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the price is almost the biggest issue! If they were reproducing the info for free on another website, it wouldn't be so bad, but these people have the balls to charge extortionate amounts. The last example I saw was an e-book being sold for £4 a go! – PeeJay 19:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do anything about that, I believe. You have possibilities of personally complaining to, or taking action against, a reuser, if there is a violation of your copyright. (In certain circumstances, there may be eventual limitations to the normal attribution, to which you may have agreed throught the Wikipedia terms of use.) -- Asclepias (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't actually mind about personal attribution, I just want there to be some recognition of Wikipedia somewhere in the book. It would be even better, though, if Wikipedia changed its license to prevent third-party publishers from copying our content verbatim. We all work so hard to put together this great encyclopaedia, and then some opportunistic wanker comes along to profit from our work, putting in no effort of his own! – PeeJay 12:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

G'day, Could I get some advice on this image? It has been questioned during a peer review prior to nominating as a FA candidate, and I would like to make sure it is OK before nominating it. The image is used only in the article Pavle Đurišić, and is used to show what he looked like. He was killed in 1945. The author of the photo is unknown, and there is no reasonable likelihood of a free image becoming available in the foreseeable future. It is currently tagged with "Non-free historic image". Does this image meet the non-free content criteria and the acceptable use criteria of Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely.? If so, is the current tag appropriate and if not, what would be the appropriate tag? Thanks in advance. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a problem because File:Pavle Đurišić and Pirzio Biroli speech.jpg claims to be public domain. If it is then there is no justification for saying that the other image is irreplaceable. There is a good chance that there are even more images puiblic domain due to age. So one of the NFCC criteria is not supportable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

you might be surprised about the limited number of images of any type, but for a start I'm going to get my co-contributor to look at the second image to check that the claim re: public domain is not a furph. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't the one that uploaded the non-free image, I just expanded the FUR when requested to my best ability. I suppose the PD image can be cropped to replace the non-free one. To be honest it'll be a terrible substitute given the angle and quality, but I guess it's better than nothing. Alternatively I believe the "Non-free fair use in" template could be used given that the PD image doesn't "adequately give the same information". -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 09:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If that is acceptable, I'd be keen to pursue it. I believe that a crop from the quite poor quality PD image would not adequately give the same information (ie what he looked like). Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I recently uploaded a picture to the Trophy Club, Texas Wikipedia page of the town's clocktower in a picture that came from a promotional magazine that the city paid for and distributed to all of the town's citizens for free. It is also available freely on the city's webpage. What steps do I need to take to upload this picture to the Wikipedia page? The guidelines for uploading pictures are somewhat confusing to me. Thanks, and I appreciate any help I receive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archermm (talk • contribs) 17:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What is most important: the magazine being free of charge doesn't necessarily mean that you may re-use its content from a copyright point of view. The images in the magazine must have a free-use license or a statement that anyone is allowed to re-use them for any purpose including commercial adaptations. If there is no such license inside the print issue or on the webpage then we should better not use the images at all. After all they are replaceable since anyone can take similar images of the town and release them under a free license. For a list of acceptable licenses from the creator, see Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses. De728631 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the copyright status on this image. Perhaps someone can provide some insight. It says it's copyrighted and that the author lets people use it as long as they get attribution and copyright? Thanks for the input. File:StanislausNF-Rafting.jpg Sarah (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's still copyrighted to the photographer of the image, which is fine. But their limited restrictions on its use (eg attribution and crediting) is compatable with our free content licenses (it nearly CC-BY-SA) including apparent reuse and modification. It should be noted that when you normally copyright something, we assume standard copyright language, but you can copyright something and put it into a freer use, alternatively you can relinquish the copyright to put it into the PD. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/349981/taft.pdf Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Download: Maybe. In some countries, it is legal to make personal copies of works which have been made available to the public. In other countries, it is illegal to do this.

Upload to Wikipedia: Definitely illegal. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What about downloading it for my personal use in the United States? Also, for the record, I was not the one who initially put this thesis link into Wikipedia. This was another user in response to a question I had about a particular book (this thesis is related to this book). And by upload to Wikipedia, you mean that it is illegal to upload the whole thing into Wikipedia, right--not that it's illegal to just put the link of this thesis on Wikipedia? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If something is on the internet on a webserver with permission to view it, the technical means to do that is to download it to the browser, which will probably store it in a temporary file. So the download is legal, Just that saving the file on your computer may not be. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

By downloading it for personal use, I meant actually saving the file on my computer.

I asked the user who gave me the link to this file whether it was legal for me to download it. Here's what he said:

"Your question about the legality of downloading her thesis is a somewhat tricky point and, as I'm not a lawyer, I really don't know precisely. The thesis is in an academic database (ProQuest Theses & Dissertations). My institution pays a subscription to access this database, so it is perfectly legal for me to download the thesis. The point where things get a little tricky is whether I can share it with you. ProQuest's Terms and Conditions of use state the following:

You and your Authorized Users may provide to a third party colleague minimal, insubstantial amounts of materials retrieved from the Products for personal use or scholarly, educational or scientific research use in hard copy or electronically, provided that in no case any such sharing is done in a manner or magnitude as to act as a replacement for the recipient's or recipient institution's own subscription to either the Products or the purchase of the underlying Work.

I believe that by sharing a small number of articles to users who are engaged in scholarly and educational work (namely writing and editing an encyclopedia) and who do not otherwise have access to these databases, I am not abusing these terms and conditions. I don't believe you can purchase this thesis, so the last clause wouldn't apply here, but you can see why scanning a few pages or a chapter would be less problematic than scanning a whole book. "

Basically, he said that given the policies of the institution that provided him this link/document in the first place, it appears to be legal to download it based on his legal knowledge.

Does anyone know for a fact whether this user's legal analysis of this document/thesis and its downloading/saving on my computer is correct or not? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears that based on this institution's guidelines it should be legal for me to download this thesis, since I could use some of the info that it has to edit and further enrich Wikipedia articles. Plus, there is no way to buy this thesis. Futurist110 (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice that File:Luke Romyn.jpg includes the phrase "Copyright (c) 2010 Luke Romyn ". I usually see that phrasing or a CC license (or PD), but not both. I know that "Copyright (c)" standing alone, means "all rights reserved". I also know (or think I know) that the presence of a free license doesn't mean there is no copyright, instead, it means the owner still holds copyright, but has provided a license covering usage of the material. I think that a CC license should be viewed as a modification of the copyright, but I don't know whether it is wrong to have both on the page. To put it differently, does "Copyright (c)" mean all rights reserved, or does it mean, all rights reserved, except as may be explicitly revised by licence? I hope it is the former, in which case we should remove the notice.

The reason I hope it is the former is that when I am looking at a source document to determine the copyright status, I assume if I find nothing, it is subject to copyright (depending on the age), if I find an explicit CC license, it is covered by the license, but if I see the "(c)" symbol, I can stop looking. I would hate to find out that I have to search the entire source in case the all rights copyright is modified elsewhere.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

In my understanding, (C) simply means "copyright exists", i.e. it is easily compatible with a CC license. Even an explicit "all rights reserved" might in principle be compatible with a CC license granted in parallel to it – it's basically just like having a dual license, like our CC-BY-SA + GFDL. Each of these statements reserves some rights while releasing some others, and it's up to the re-user to decide which of these statements to follow. About the practical issue of how to look for them, assuming you are talking about checking licensing claims for other users' image uploads and the like, I usually assume that a CC license will be clearly visible on the same website (or printed page) where the image in question is. Typically it's either right next to the image, or somewhere at the bottom of the page. Absence of such an easily findable statement justifies the assumption that no free licensing exists. If there is a licensing statement hidden somewhere else, e.g. on a "terms and conditions" page somewhere else on the website, or somewhere in the front matter or back matter of a book, then it's the responsibility of the uploader to point that out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The CC license (as any other license) implies that the work is under copyright, because someone can't license a work if they don't own the copyright on it. So, the statement of the copyright and the statement of a license are perfectly compatible and complementary. Because a license implies the existence of a copyright, some authors do not think useful to restate the obvious by adding a separate copyright statement. But when an author writes a statement that he offers his work under a free license, it can be prudent for him to also write a clear and redundant copyright statement, to remind people that it is so, because there are unfortunately still people who seem to think that a free license means something like a release to the public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for both answers. I like Future Perfect at Sunrise's suggestion that it is the responsibility of the uploader to point out the CC license if not obvious. As I noted, when I am searching a source in a copyvio issue, I usually stop when I find the copyright symbol, I would hate to find out that I need to search for terms and conditions which might override the implicit all rights reserved.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming that for someone to give permission for this image File:Mark O. Hatfield Memorial Trail.jpg, they need to be the author of the added artwork AND be the copyright holder of the underlying map (or show that the map is PD)?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Partially answering my own question, I see that US TOPO maps are generally free, so I will check to see if that was the source of the map.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been easy for me to determine that the majority of the uploaded images for James Holmes have not qualified for our non-free content criteria. I'm a bit unsure on this one. Can someone offer an opinion? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That image is absolutely unnecessary. Presently, while he is under arrest, he hasn't been incarcerated (though its very unlikely this won't be the end result), any image of the person fails NFCC#1 as we should be able to get a free image of him. If he does end up in prison for a long period, then and only then can we talk about non-free imagery, and in that case, you can get something better than a self-posted pic at a dating website. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The image is of his profile, which is a subject of commentary in the article. There is no free equivalent of that. I'm more concerned that it might not meet NFCC#8. That is where we should be focused though, not on criteria #1. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I know that his AFF profile was one of his few digital fingerprints, but as you state, is it necessary to understand the article? No. We'd be able to get a free picture (working assumption) and any key phrases from the AFF that have drawn interest in the news event have likely been covered in other articles and can be quoted in a free manner within the article. So NFCC#8 and NFCC#1 fail here. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I was under the impression that it wasn't particularly useful, in fact I could hardly find the relevant material. It was just a twist on the issue so I wanted to get a perspective from here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I was attempting to assist KMuuli (talk · contribs) on my talkpage with an issue they were having with an image at File:Marko Kantaneva, the creator of nordic walking.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The file had been deleted once before due to a copyright restriction. They've re-uploaded the image, but I noticed that according to WP:IUP, the image may still not be suitable for upload onto Wikipedia. The original author has a non-commercial restriction on the image release, listed at http://www.markokantaneva.com/40 : "The below picture has been released to the public domain. It is free to use for everyone, for any purpose, except commercial."

Can someone more familiar with our copyright restrictions take a look at the file, and confirm if it can be kept, and if so what is the appropriate copyright tag that it should have on it? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It cannot be used on Wikipedia. It is a non-free image due to the commercial restriction. It fails NFCC#1 which states that a free image cannot be taken. A free image of someone nordic walking could be taken in anyone's back yard. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that the image still cannot be used due to the commercial restriction. That had been my assumption given how I had read WP:IUP, but I had wanted to confirm.

The image had previously been deleted under the file name File:Marko Kantaneva, the creator of Nordic Walking.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and that one had also been due to NFCC#1. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Hitlerwithoumoustache0002.jpg has the following stated for why the image falls in the public domain:

"This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired.

This applies to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years."

The image is dated from 1944, which is less than 70 years ago. It may well still fall into the public domain however, since it is a work of the United States government (specifically the Secret Service, part of the Department of the Treasury).

Am I missing something or should this be updated to Template:PD-USGov-Treasury? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GringoDeMaio (talk • contribs) 20:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This should be discussed at Wikimedia Commons where the image is stored. See Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. De728631 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

How long has that Heinz logo been used? I am fairly certain the copyright tag on this is incorrect. I'm not listing it for deletion though, because it should be converted to an FUR if the license is in fact wrong. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of originality in the bottle design, I very much doubt that Heinz bottles have been so similar over so many years; in fact, I know not. Should be a downsized FUR. Obviously what we're worried about here is what's in the photograph, not the photograph. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Have I adequately tagged it? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. We can't keep a photo and remove its license. That would be a violation of the photographer's copyright on the photo. (We could do it if we were making a fair use of the photo, for example in an article commenting the merits of the photo or the work of the photographer, but then there would be no need to claim fair use of a freely licensed photo.) If you are of the opinion that the pictured label cannot be used freeIy in the context of this photo in the United States, and if you want to invoke fair use of the label, then I think what you are looking for is something like Template:Photo of art, which allows the distinction between the free licensing of the work of the photographer and the fair use of a copyrighted subject pictured on the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

At Commons:Image casebook the section about product packaging reads that the overall 3D shape of most packaging (boxes, cartons, bottles) is not copyright-protected, only the printed partsing may contain copyrighted parts. So I wouldn't worry about the bottle design but only about the Heinz logo. One might argue that it's only a simple geometrical shape with some text on it, so it's not copyrightable either. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the outline is a simple geometric shape. In any case, the green pepper, or whatever that is, is certainly not a simple geometric shape. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If it can be an indication, Commons already hosts similar images. For example, you can have a look at the categories H. J. Heinz Company and Ketchup. If the label and the bottle are considered not copyrighed, then a free image is acceptable. If the bottle is copyrighted, then the image is not accepted. If the bottle is not copyrighted but the label is copyrighted, then perhaps one can apply the principle of Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. (i.e. if a photo is of the whole bottle, not merely of the label, it is ok), if one thinks that it does not matter if the bottle contains vodka or ketchup. Images have been kept with this rationale on Commons and on Wikipedia (see one example). Some other images have been deleted. The application has not been always consistent. I suppose that one difficulty is to evaluate in each case if the case is reasonably similar enough to apply the principle. For example, Commons does not accept images if the (copyrighted) label covers the whole container. Commons would possibly not accept it either if the photo was first published in a country other than the U.S., unless it's okay there too. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

While we are at it, I'd like to raise the question whether the current Heinz logo is not too simple to be copyrighted. To me this looks like {{PD-textlogo}}. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That file was deleted from commons, see this. The rationale was "Font is ok but the logo isn't" Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This looks like a rather one-sided decision though without a proper deletion discussion. We should clarify the legal status over here and then change the license if possible, so we can reupload it at Commons. De728631 (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Without any discussion no consensus was formed but I would certainly assign {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}} to it. There are many logos, but do they pass the threshold of originality. IMHO this one does not. ww2censor (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

LET US BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET A DIRRECT ECCESS TO OTHER INTERNET SITES AS SOPPORTS TO OUR RESEARCH RETHER THAN FOR US OPENING SO MANY PAGES AT A TIME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divinefortune (talk • contribs) 14:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, writing in capital letters only is regarded as shouting and is therefore very impolite. And how is this related to copyright issues? I think you're at the wrong discussion board. You might want to the check Wikipedia:Emailing users though. De728631 (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As this image is composed of only a bi-coloured hexagon and three letters, can it really be considered {{Non-free logo}}, rather than {{PD-shape}} or possibly {{PD-textlogo}}? Useddenim (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To me this is {{PD-textlogo}}. De728631 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like commons content to me. I'd replace it with {{PD-textlogo}} {{trademark}} and {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. De728631 (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Has been transferred. ww2censor (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How exactly do you do that? I have a transfer to commons button, but I haven't gotten it to work. Do you have to physically download the picture? I assumed there was some type of import capability. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I use one of the move tools such as the Move-to-commons assistant and if you have a TUSC account it will do so directly without having to even download it. ww2censor (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There is an audio sample I want to upload, but I'm not sure if it's totally out of bounds, or possibly a complete non-issue. The sample is from a song called "Liebeslied". The original version of the song contains a sample of the Carl Orff opera song "O Fortuna" from his cantata Carmina Burana. The sample was used without permission, and the album the song was on (Naïve) was discontinued after legal threats from Orff's estate. About fifteen years later a new version of the album was released without the sample. The song is a fairly important aspect of the album's history. Is this something that I could upload if I mentioned that the copyright to the music is held in part by both the band who recorded the album (KMFDM) and the Orff estate? Since the band cannot sell the original version, and the sample is not the unaltered original Orff music, it seems like it wouldn't interfere with either party's rights. I just want to get more information in case this is problematic before taking action. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like it could be fair use. But please consider if the sample aids understanding. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have a quick question regarding the use of this image. Firstly, is it allowed under its this attribution licence and secondly (If its allowed), Commons or directly onto WP? -- Cassianto^Talk 20:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is explicitly licensed CC-BY 2.0 , so that's a good start. Further, UK does have freedom of panaroma, so (presuming that plaque is on the outside of the house), it cannot be copyrighted. Ergo, it is a free image, and one that can be hosted at Commons. Just make sure to link back to that source page and use the CC-BY-2.0 licensing template. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Great news. It is on the outside so it's OK there too. Thanks for the reply Masem! -- Cassianto^Talk 21:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this fair use of the face of a deceased person? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say you had a decent case for a deceased person (give free alternatives a quick search, though); what I'm a bit confused over is that you've uploaded that file with a free licence. If it's not taken by you then you certainly can't do that; it's either going to non-free or unfortunately not available. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

While the person is rather recently deceased, I would hope editors could continue to look for free imagery of the person but a non-free image of the person is appropriate to use in this case. I'm not sure if that image can be hosted on commons since there's no sign its licensed under a free license. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I respect this advice. But I don't know how to move it from wikicommons to wikipedia. Could somebody else kindly do that for me please? Kittybrewster ☎ 23:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You can't move it I don't think, you should delete it on Commons and upload it again. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is uploaded on both. Contrast Ziki Wharton which I intended to be fair use. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There is now a different photograph on wikipedia. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There have been enormous difficulties uploading an image into the Nordic walking article. First there were several copyright license issues, which honestly I have no clue about. But only now that I got a permission (from the owner personally) and finally fixed the licensing or so it seems I find out that this particular image under this license can ONLY be used in the English Wiki (this article has been translated into multiple languages). Unless I'm missing something this particular point isn't mentioned anywhere until you finally upload the picture and try to use it in other language wiki's (then it asks for extra information etc in EVERY LANGUAGE separately). So now again I went to the author and got him to release the photo into free use, but alas another problem arose. I can't upload the picture into the wiki commons (to be used in all the different language wiki articles) before I get this one deleted. Sigh. So please if anyone could verify from the website "www.markokantaneva.com" that the first picture in the nordic walking article has been released to the public and is now completely free and then delete the old copyright version (which already has a deletion tag under it). Then I could finally upload a new free version to wiki commons and fix those other article's as well. KMuuli (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC) (Wikipedia can be somewhat dim witted at times...)

Unfortunately we still cannot upload this image to Commons. The license at http://www.markokantaneva.com/40 prohibits commercial re-use which is however required for images on Commons. Unless the image may be re-used for any purpose it can only be hosted on certain regional Wikipedias that allow for fair-use claims. The author may however want to select one of the various Creative Commons free licenses that require attribution, so even if the image is then used for commercial adaptations it will still have to be credited to him. For a list of possible free licenses, see Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses. De728631 (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Add to that the problem that per policy we don't normally allow fair-use images that depict living people. After all anyone can possibly take a photograph of them and release it under a free license, which means that the current image is replaceable and it will likely be deleted if the creator doesn't release it under a completely free license, including commercial adaptations. De728631 (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The following link now clearly states that the picture has been released to the public domain and is usable to everyone for any purpose. http://www.markokantaneva.com/40 What's the next step to deleting it? Meaning the current version so that a free one could be uploaded to wiki commons. Thank you for the swift response. KMuuli (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The image has been update to show public domain licence. Remember this copyright cannot be withdrawn or modified for the image uploaded here. It has also been tagged for moving to the commons so there is no need to upload it there. ww2censor (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Another round of thanks. The problem has been solved. KMuuli (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm trying to upload the image to wiki commons now, using the commons helper. After putting this:

This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: The copyright holder grants any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. Public domain //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2012/July

{{original description|en.wikipedia|Marko_Kantaneva%2C_the_creator_of_nordic_walking.jpg}}

• 2012-07-24 11:13 KMuuli 500×464× (41440 bytes) Uploading an excerpt from a non-free work using [[Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard|File Upload Wizard]]

...into the summary and this: Marko_Kantaneva,_the_author_&_creator_of_Nordic_Walking.jpg into the file destination name I get this error message:

A file identical to this file (File:MARKO SUUR.jpg) has previously been deleted. You should check that file's deletion history before proceeding to re-upload it. Please modify the file description below and try again.

What to do? Because I sure don't know what to check in the file's deletion history.KMuuli (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well it looks as as if you tried to upload File:Marko Kantaneva, the creator of Nordic Walking.jpg. This is not a free image, and the non free criterion, that it is not replaceable is not satisfied. Therefore it is a copyright infringement and deleted. The solution to this is to take a photo yourself of Nordic Walking technique, ask someone else to take a picture and release it under a free license, or find one that is already free to use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear god, this has already been gone over hasn't it? The picture is free, Completely! It was made so especially so that it could be uploaded to wiki commons. Everything which was already talked about in this article as well. Why is an old deleted picture stopping me from doing this? So once more, if it hasn't been understood yet. The picture is COMPLETELY FREE (sorry for yelling). KMuuli (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Calm down - the problem is that the section headers that you copied into this section broke up the flow of the section (until I made them into subheadings) and made it very hard to figure out what you were asking.--ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• NOTE: This is the picture in question. File:Marko_Kantaneva,_the_creator_of_nordic_walking.jpg. It has already been tagged to be moved to wiki commons, which is what I was trying to do. If this is because of my incompetency then please, someone else do it. But as long as the picture isn't up in the commons, it prevents me from fixing all the other nordic walking articles as well. KMuuli (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Just have some patience - we are all volunteers here - if you cannot move the image, someone else will soon.--ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you, that is actually more reassuring. For a moment I thought I was back at square one. I should apologize, but just very frustrated with this particular article. KMuuli (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I have uploaded the file to Commons: commons:File:Marko Kantaneva, the creator of nordic walking.jpg, and have tagged the local Wikipedia copy accordingly.--ukexpat (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this image truly a {{Non-free logo}}? or should it more correctly be tagged {{PD-textlogo}}? Useddenim (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

To me it looks like it passes the threshold of creativity, so is properly tagged. It is no at all as simple as File:Sony logo.svg. ww2censor (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

On a page, how do you format the copyright info if you did not include it in the upload? --InformationContributor11 (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Assuming the image is freely licenced you can add the appropriate tag to the image page. All tags are listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/All but the free ones are here. Please make sure you know the copyright status of an image before adding a licence tag to it. Perhaps you are referring to File:Nebraska Central Railroad Map.jpg. In that case you even wrote the image is copyright and you failed to provide a source for the image. Unfortunately we can't use it. BTW, you should not remove deletion notices unless you actually fix the problem, which you did not do, so it has been retagged as missing both a source and a licence. ww2censor (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

These three images (1, 2 and 3) are in the public domain in India, but lacks a US copyright status tag. These images are used in the article Independence Day (India) which is in FAC now. Is it ok to use these imges? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I directed Dwaipayanc here and not Commons because it's more convenient and it's only the US licence that's in doubt/unknown. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That's inappropriate; they're Commons images, and they need to have a US license on Commons, too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated them all for deletion on Commons, since they're under copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the guidance. We are removing the images from the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello - I just wrote an article about my grandfather, a survivor of the Holocaust (Hermann Diamanski). Now I want to add a couple of pictures. The photographs have been in my family for years, one is about 50 years old, the other one about 40 years. I don't know who took the photographs originally. I have scanned copies of the originals that I'd like to attach. Is that legal in terms of copyright law? Thanks for your help! Danielschwizer (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I should mention that my grandfather is deceased - not sure if that makes a difference as he is the only subject in the photographs. Danielschwizer (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

These are probably still under copyright. However you can probably use one under fair use provisions. If you can show you own the copyright yourself, you can release rights. But if photographer is completely unknown and date and country unknown we cannot tell you much. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Image File:I2P logo.svg marked as non-free, but is it non-free? I think it's public domain. Check out I2P license page [6]. Сan I upload it to Commons? --Tsuruya (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Even though parts of their software is public domain does not automatically make the logo PD. However, since the logo is only text and simple shapes, {{PD-textlogo}} may apply. Chris857 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That logo distributed as part of I2P Project, so I think it's under same terms. But if it does not satisfy threshold of originality, it's fine too. Thank you, I upload this. --Tsuruya (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The license of a full work cannot make elements that are ineligible for copyright suddenly have copyright. (eg: I can't publish a book, which includes a single image of a red circle, and claims that I own the copyright on any red circle.). The call that this is not eligible for copyright by threshold of originality is probably correct. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)