Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to the bottom

Help index · Help desk · Reference desk · FAQ · Editor's welcome · Tutorial · Cheatsheet · Glossary · Any questions?

Shortcuts:
WP:MCQ
WP:IMAGEHELP
WP:ICHD

Welcome to the
Media Copyright Questions page

A place for help with image copyrights, tagging, STBotI, non-free content, and related questions.

For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.
Caution If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: [[:File:Example.jpg]]. Thanks!
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Click here to ask your question
General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards


How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
  1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
  2. From the page Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag. For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
  3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
  4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
  5. Hit Save page.
  6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
  1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to ask your question" link below.
  2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
  3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
  4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.

Contents



This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically moved to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived.


[edit] Copyright of image.

Hello!

I'm attempting to do an article about my Uncle, Martins Krumins, a Latvian-American painter who died in 1992.

I have several sources of pictures to use:

First of all, a book was published about Martins Krumins in 1980 by the Latvian Humanities and Social Science Association. It was written by Janis Silins. THIS BOOK IS NOT COPYRIGHTED. There is no copyright on the book itself and it has no ISBN number.

The Latvian Humanities and Social Science Association has been disbanded for a long time and I haven't been able to find any members.

After the book was published my Uncle gave me several copies and he also gave me negatives of the photographs of his paintings and some of the paintings themselves. He never copyrighted anything.

So, what to do? Martins Krumins wanted people to see his work and was not precious or possessive about them in any way.

I have re-photographed some early photographs which are in the book and would like to upload them to the article but I have no way of knowing where they came from or who took them. I have the original photos but again, there's no way of figuring out where they came from. It is possible that my father Roberts, a photographer, took them for his brother Martins but all information is lost.

What sort of tags or information should I use?

Daina Krumins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perkons (talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The book may not have had a copyright notice, but that does not mean it was not copyrighted. Anything published (or even “fixed”) in the US after 1976 is automatically copyrighted; see Copyright Act of 1976.
A potentially more serious problem with your project is notability. Please read WP:BIO and consider seriously whether you uncle is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. I see little if any indication of his notability in your draft. You should work on evidence of notability, backed up by references to independent reliable sources Hundreds of articles are deleted every day; I would hate to have you spend a lot of effort on an article only to have it deleted. Please read Wikipedia:Your first article. —teb728 t c 20:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It is not correct that "Anything published (or even “fixed”) in the US after 1976 is automatically copyrighted". First, the Copyright Act of 1976 did not go into effect until January 1, 1978. Second, under the 1976 act, a work that was published without a proper copyright notice could go into the public domain after five years if the work was not registered for copyright. Not until March 1, 1989 was a copyright notice optional under U.S. copyright law. — Walloon (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and as for the paintings, you mention at File:AUTUMN SMALL FILE.jpg that you are executor of his estate. I believe that would give you the right to license photos of his works (assuming they are not 3 dimensional). —teb728 t c 20:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image Copyright

I want to upload an image of Hiroyuki Tomita (because I feel there needs to be one) and I found one that was taken by a photographer from the Chinese news websited "Xinhuanet.com". I discovered the image in the Arabic [language] page of the Official Webiste of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. There is absolutely no evidence the it is copywritten (that I know of, as I don't speak or read Arabic). There is a message stating that the image is subject to deletion. Could someone check into this and, if the image must be deleted, someone needs to upload an image for the biographical article. The direct URL to the above-mentioned webpage accompanies the picture.

Et Al.: There are several biographical artical (specifically of Olympic athletes) that I feel need to have accompanying pictures.

--Girolle (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't simply upload images you find on the web. It doesn't work the way you describe. We assume the work is copyrighted until someone can clearly demonstrate that the image was released under a free license. You don't need evidence that it is copyrighted (because that is an assumption we have for all works), you need evidence that it isn't. Sorry. -Andrew c [talk] 12:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. As I said before, some biographical articles of WELL KNOWN Olympic athletes NEED to have accompanying pictures, specifically the biographies of Ahn Hyun-soo and Hiroyuki Tomita (and the gymnast Naoya Tsukahara needs a biography period in my opinion!). --Girolle (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If an article needs an image, but there isn't one available under a free license, try the procedure at WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "need". Can you explain further? Wikipedia generally does not allow fair-use images of living people for the purposes of identification. If you desire an image for the article, go out and take one yourself (or try to contact a photographer who may be able to go to a sporting event). Alternatively, find photos that are already online and contact the photographer per COPYREQ to see if they will donate the image. Flickr sometimes is a good source for that. Hope this gives you some ideas.-Andrew c [talk] 21:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Remember: Pacifist Kitten sheds a tiny tear when you don't get along. Don't make Pacifist Kitten cry! – Quadell (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Nothing needs a photo bad enough to be an excuse for violating copyright. It sounds like you are not listening to what anyone is telling you. Copyright violations are not just immoral, they are illegal. DreamGuy (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Gah! No need to bite! – Quadell (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, no kidding! Plus, while certainly illegal, copyright violations aren't immoral, given that copyright is a utilitarian concept. -- Hux (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to help someone understand right from wrong. Having someone who apparently lacks morals and common sense show up to chime in isn't helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
You think he lacks morals and common sense because he uploaded one image, asked for help, and opined that articles on Olympic athletes need images? Pretty harsh, dude. – Quadell (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Girolle, try putting {{reqphoto}} on the talk page of the articles for these athletes, and perhaps someone will find or create free ones. Meanwhile, thanks for your original contributions to articles on athletes! – Quadell (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the information. And how dare you, dreamguy, accuse me of deliberately violating a copyright; you don't even know me and if you weren't going to say anything helpful, you shouldn't have said anything at all. Anyway, thanks everyone, again. --Girolle (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:By78

User:By78 has uploaded a lot of images and released them in the public domain, highly unlikely that any of the images were taken by the uploader. He/she has uploaded well over a hundred images, have we a way of dealing with them other than searching for the originals one-by-one and adding copyvio or pui tags to the them all one at a time? Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems impossible for this uploader to have taken these two photos, File:PLAN-Shang-class.jpeg and File:PLAAF-J10-takeoff.jpg, with 19 minutes of each other according to the images' metadata which makes one suspicious of all the files uploaded. ww2censor (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe you are incorrectly reading the metadata. The data didn't come from a camera, but instead perhaps a scanner or photo editing software. So it is plausible that someone could scan or edit these two photos within 19 minutes of each other. That said, these look like professional, if not official photos, and it's likely they came from the web. I'd ask the uploader about it and see if there can't be OTRS permission (or if no permission, delete all the images). -Andrew c [talk] 11:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Note the watermark at the bottom of File:PLAAF-J10-takeoff.jpg. These photos are obviously not the work of a random Wikipedian (unless they happen to work for the PLA, in which case they could give us a copyright release ;) Physchim62 (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
OK I have left the user a note, he/she has said that My own work as a commissioned officer of the PLA. in one of their edits. Still concerned if we can we just delete the images if no permission is forthcoming without individually tagging the images or going through PUI. MilborneOne (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No response from uploader - all nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 28. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How come a photo from nazzi concetration camp is copyrighted?

"Mug shot" of Witold Pilecki from concetration camp Osvetim is allegedly copyrighted. Who is the owner and how he/she aquired this copyright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.24.41.27 (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoever created the photo holds the copyright. If it was an individual, that individual's heirs hold the copyright for 70 years after his death. If the copyright was held by the Third Reich, all the Third Reich's copyrights were passed on to a private corporation, though I don't remember the name. – Quadell (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the theory I know of course. But I am interested in "practise":

1) Who took the picture? Most probably a camp photographer, who might be a member of SS or Gestapo. Do such people qualify for copyrights of photographs of political prisoners? 2) Even if the holder would be "Third Reich" and now some private organization - this is a photograph of political prisoner, taken "by force" - so I doubt any international body would agree with such rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.24.41.27 (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) Yes. And (2) the EU honors copyrights regardless of the morality of the person who took the photo. And the U.S. honors EU copyrights. Copyright-holder do commonly sue for unauthorized use of WWII-era photos, and those suits are usually successful. – Quadell (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly PD logo

Hi! Here we've got the logo of the ancient Spanish political party Eusko Abertzale Ekintza. I consider that it's PD shape: it consists in a circle, a star and a lauburu. So... it's PD? Opinions? Best regards. Rastrojo (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AC Alles

I tried to upload a photograph of Mr AC Alles in his site but failed owing to a query raised by your goodself re copyright of the said photograph. Really, this photograph appears on the back cover of one of Mr Alles's books without credit being given to the photographer. There's no mention of the photographer's name. I guess it may be a private one taken by Mr Alles. Hence, I believe there wouldn't be a problem in reproducing same. I could scan the page in which this photo appears and send it to you to substantiate my statement? Please advise me how i may get about this. Thanks and warm regards. Qnyafs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qnyafs (talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there is no credit does not make it useable. You might try contacting the book publisher; they presumably know the source of the photo. Tell them you are trying to get a license for reuse by anyone for anything. —teb728 t c 04:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Apollon Limassol

Can I upload a photo in Apollon limassol article whithout remove it later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kividas (talk • contribs) 09:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact File:Apollon-Limassol.png, a logo that you uploaded, is in no danger of being deleted. But glancing at your talk page I see that you have had many other images deleted because you did not give the source, copyright status or license. For each image you need to tell where you got it, who the copyright owner is, and by what license Wikipedia can use it. If the image is not under a license that allows anyone to reuse it for anything, you also need a non-free use rationale, explaining why the use conforms to Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free use policy.
By the way, when you add a new topic to a forum, please add a section header on top if it (like the one I added for you). For lack of a section header nobody noticed your post for hours. —teb728 t c 07:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sheet music covers

Can copyrighted sheet music covers be used to illustrate the music in question? There are fair use rationales for album and single covers, but none for sheet music. The only ones I've found in use are covers like this one and this one, which use {{PD-US}} since they're released before 1923. Is there a rationale for using sheet music covers newer than that? I want to use a low-resolution version of this image at "I Thought About You" (published 1939). Is this considered fair use? Which rationale should I use? Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case it's moot, since the sheet music for that song is PD. A search of the copyright renewal records shows that Jimmy Van Heusen renewed the copyright for some of his songs, but not this one. You can tag it {{PD-US-not renewed}}. – Quadell (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I presume in the general case the use is not allowed if the copyright is renewed? Jafeluv (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No, use may be allowed, like book covers in articles on books. But the image would have to pass our strict non-free content criteria. – Quadell (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
A non-free sheet music cover would be most acceptable for identification on an article on sheet music itself (a rare kind of article I suspect). For an article on the song (rather than the sheet music), the rationale would require a rather strong explanation of why the use significant increases readers’ understanding of the article. —teb728 t c 06:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
In almost every case, use of non-free sheet music would be decorative and fail to increase readers' understanding of the article enough to pass WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Olivia Manning

I have been working on this article about a 20th century writer who died in 1980, and have been trying to find pictures to illustrate it. So far I've found a series of period shots of places she lived, but obviously some pictures of some humans would be good too! It is a difficult period from a copyright perspective: those involved are deceased, but the photos of them would still be under copyright restrictions. I think it is clear that one picture of Manning could be used under fair use terms. I presume this is limited to just one? What about a picture of her husband, to whom she was married for 40 years, who died in 1985, and whom she wrote about a good deal? Could this be considered fair use? Pictures of her friend Stevie Smith are already uploaded to WP under fair-use criteria (I think), but I'm guessing can't be used here? Anyway, any ideas and suggestions for what to do about this difficult in between period would be gratefully received. PS. I should mention that I have trawled through various websites looking for relevant free images, and haven't found any myself.--Slp1 (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This might help to consider. How would seeing an image of her husband or friend help the reader identify/understand the subject of the article?-Andrew c [talk] 14:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I am hoping and presuming this is a not a rhetorical question. Her husband is very well-known as the model for characters in her books, including Guy Pringle in the Fortunes of War; as such I would argue that it does indeed help one to understand the subject of the article and her work.--Slp1 (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:File-YPPedia_logo.png

I am not sure what tag it needs, but I guess its {{non-free logo}} as its the logo of another wiki found here --Lcawte (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

See below.-Andrew c [talk] 14:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Puzzle_Pirates_logo_art.PNG

Dont know the copywrite but I guess its {{non-free logo}} as it is found all over this games offical website here --Lcawte (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You cannot use non-free images in userboxes. See WP:NFCC #9. This image, as it isn't used in the main article namespace, will likely be deleted. -Andrew c [talk] 14:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Doesnt awnser my question, what copywrite template does it need? --Lcawte (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
My point was that no tag is going to fix that image if you are going to use that image (or any non-free image) outside of the main article space. Strictly hypothetically speaking, that copyright tag is usually sufficient for most non-free logos, as long as they have an accompanying fair use rational and otherwise meet all of the WP:NFCC. -Andrew c [talk] 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This is bordering on {{PD-textlogo}}. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Section

Once an article is created, how do I upload photographs that I have taken and others that I have obtained copyright permission to use for online articles? I do not see a link to do this. When I add the edit for picture - it asks for a file name but does not give a mechanism to transfer the image.

Any help appreciated.

J.K.

On the left hand navigation, there is an upload link which takes you to Wikipedia:Upload. Anonymous users cannot upload files, and new users need to be autoconfirmed. You may want to upload the files directly to the commons if they are licensed freely. More information on that is at the upload page. Finally, this page is for copyright questions. For basic help, you should use WP:HELP. -Andrew c [talk] 14:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting license statements

At the time of upload, Commons file File:Snow Hill NC Courthouse.jpg was tagged with a {{self|cc-by-3.0}} and given the words "full use for non-profit purposes" in the permission line. In the light of the permission template, are the words of any value? I guess my question is basically "which one trumps the other"? Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, this image is on the commons, so questions should probably be directed there... That out of the way, the user likely just picked a license from the drop down menu without reading it. Since this was their first upload, I believe the text they added to the upload trumps the default license, meaning we should delete this image as having improper permission, and contact the uploader regarding why to see if they want to reconsider how they release the image. -Andrew c [talk] 14:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've emailed the uploader. By the way, I would have asked this at Commons, except I wasn't aware that Commons had something equivalent to MCQ. Link, please? Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't bother coming up with a link; Andrew c just gave it to me, Commons:Commons talk:Licensing. Nyttend (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting Ireland

The images on Attainment badge (Scouting Ireland) were uploaded as "self made" and licensed as cc-by-sa-3.0. These are obviously scans of emblems created by Scouting Ireland. I would change these to non-free, but can these generic-style emblems be subject to copyright or trademark? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, only the most basic forms and typeface based logos are ineligible for copyright. Generic style emblems are subject to copyright. I don't believe switching the tag to non-free would solve this issue, as these images are used for decoration in a gallery/list. One group shot (perhaps some badges attached to a sash/shirt) should suffice. This many individual non-free images seems like an abuse. The uploader should be notified that taking an photograph of a copyrighted work does not give you the right to release that derivative work under a free license.-Andrew c [talk] 15:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
That confirms my thoughts; I'm aware of the gallery issue that would result. Thanks. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What is wrong with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jmacbonniehunt.jpg

It is a not just a promotional use but a file distributed by the actor/artist Jennette McCurdy for all individuals under her list. I hav listed the webpage, sources as best as possible. It is not exactly a copyright from Startraksphot.com--the pictures there are not an exact copy of the the photo which cannot be used any where else. The photo shows two individuals but it is the best picture of the subject Jennette McCurdy as possible since there are no other free images available. Please respond.Jeneral28 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The non-free content criteria does not allow images that could be replaced by a free image. As the subject is still alive then the possiblity of a free image being available or being taken is reasonable and a non-free image can not be used. Being released as promotional image does not mean that it is not copyright or free to use. You could consider asking her website or management if they would release the image under a free license, refer Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, am trying to contact the person. In the meantime, could you help ensure that the picture stays? Thanks.Jeneral28 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Cant really stop the deletion but it doesnt mean you cant upload it again when you have permission. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission explains what to do. MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the admin/actor doe take a long time to reply to emails.Jeneral28 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure which tag to use

Ive posted a diagram from an expired US patent and am not sure which copyright tag to use - there's no copyright on the diagram since it's from a fully expired patent that is now 100% in the public domain, plus, there is no copyright notice on the image or in the patent disclosure which, according to the patent office, means there is no copyright protection. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_1_71.htm#cfr37s1.71 It's the rumble generator in the topic "Sensurround" Ty Chamberlain (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean the image File:SensurroundRumbleGenerator.jpg which is currently tagged as having no copyright info, which is what you are asking about. However there is also no source info or link and you don't tell us anywhere what the date of this patent and the drawing is and there is no author info. Both of these should be provided. Please do that and maybe we can help you more. ww2censor (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It comes from the US Patent Office and I got my copy from http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3973839.html - the date the patent was issued is 08/10/1976 to MCA Systems, Inc. According to the patent law (USPTO.gov link provided above) a patent must have an explicit copyright notice otherwise it's drawings and contents are non-copyrighted. —Preceding Ty Chamberlain (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC) comment added by Disclord (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You need {{PD-US-patent}}. I have done it for you. HairyWombat (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How do I flag these for deletion again?

Hello.
I keep forgetting how this works... The current logo put up for Coffee Crisp (here: File:Coffee_Crisp_logo.jpg, with commons entry here: [1]) is listed as having been "created" by a wikipedia editor, and thus released under GFDL. The problem is that the work consists solely of a company's logo for a commercial product. Surely this can't be legal (At best, he just traced the logo. And I'm pretty sure that a tracing isn't an original creation. That said, I don't think it was even traced).
Could someone do me a big favour and tag it for immediate deletion? (It can't really be considered for fair use as the same article already has a picture of a coffee crisp bar that gets the idea across sufficiently) And, could someone (who knows how) also tag the commons version?
Thank you. 72.88.69.221 (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm starting to think it may be a problem with the editor. I took at look at his recent file contributions, and found this: File:SW_antenna_cost_2009_USD.png. I found it strange that some entries were underlined, almost like html links, so did a quick search. Sure enough, I found this page: [2].
The picture seems to just be a screenshot of the webpage. Surely taking a screenshot of someone's work doesn't qualify as your own creation, right? I know it's a lot to ask, but could someone take a look at his other past file contributions, and check for other... um... "mis-tagged" images? (I'd also love if someone could notify him of his conversation, because I don't personally know how to politely tell a person about something like this.) 72.88.69.221 (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You are correct, both of these are copyright violations. I'll look through the uploader's other contributions. – Quadell (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I've done everything correctly how an admin told me to! Images are still being tagged!

I'm not sure what else I need to do. I have a source listed, author listed, OTRS ticket number. I have sent all the letters of permissions from the source that is allowing me to post their pictures. A bot is still tagging all of my uploaded images. They are as follows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iowavictorylane.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iowapretech.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iowafasttime.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justingrosser (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You mis-formatted the templates. I'll fix it for you. Dendodge T\C 20:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not signing my post, thank you though.

Justingrosser (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] can i use this source???

I wanted to know if images from the following site http://www.st-spike.org/pages/uniforms/uniforms.htm can be used to illustrate Star Trek uniforms. A reply woulf be really helpful. Thanks IkeMuotoh (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The disclaimer on the home page states "© Spike 2000-2007. All rights reserved. STAR TREKTM and many related terms are registered trademarks of Paramount Pictures, Inc." You could always e-mail the site owner and see if they wouldn't mind donating images by releasing them under a free license. However, that could get sticky because some of the work is probably derivative of Paramount Pictures property, so the site owner wouldn't have the copyright to that stuff anyway....)-Andrew c [talk] 01:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Can't locate copyright status and every US journal does not append a copyright tag

I'm trying to save this image: File:Liquefaction_at_Niigata.JPG, which I found to have this original source from several US websites that use it: “Niigata Earthquake, 1964,” Japan National Committee on Earthquake Engineering, Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Volume III, pp s.78-s.105.

So, it's a work of Japanese government. How does copyright work for the Japanese government? No US seismological organization that uses the image seems to append a copyright tag, so I am appending the tag mentioned. What to do here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meowist (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how works of the Japanese government work, but your tag is certainly wrong.
If it had been originally published within the US prior to 1978, then that might be different. However, just because some people choose to reuse it in the US without a proper tag does not, in and of itself, put it in the public domain. (Otherwise, by that logic, anyone would be able to put the works of others into the public domain by simply being sloppy with copyright tags)
(Incidentally, this is excluding the fact that you'd have to verify that those other US sources didn't have copyright tags anywhere. Those things tend to be kinda hidden sometimes) 72.88.69.221 (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Japan considers works of the Japanese government to be copyrighted for 50 years after publication. In the U.S., corporate works such as this that were first published outside the U.S. are considered copyrighted for 95 years after publication, so the U.S. will consider the image copyrighted until at least 2059. – Quadell (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A Drawing from a photo

Hello. I have drawn someone from a foto. Now I´d like to load it up for the side where it is needed here, but in one thing I`m not sure : I dont have the copyright of the foto. My drawing is black and white, instead of coloured as the foto is and its my "painting interpretation" of this foto, so not exakt the same foto. Now my question: Am I allowed to upload it? (Excuse me, my english should be better ;) Thanks for reading, Moidame —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moidame (talk • contribs) 00:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. A drawing that reproduces a photograph is a derivative work of the original photograph, so you would still have to get permission from the photo's copyright holder in order to use the drawing. – Quadell (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is fair use rationale valid for Templates

Can images be used in templates if there is a valid fair use rationale? There was an image that was deleted from the following template: Template:University of Utah. I have seen similar images on other university templates. UteFan16 (talk)

No, WP:NFCC#9 says that a non-free image can go only in article space. —teb728 t c 04:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC) The other images in templates might have been free use, and indeed File:UofU logo color.png might be {{PD-ineligible}}. —teb728 t c 04:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] commons:File:Limerick Nuclear Facility from 422W.jpg

Pictures of this facility are not permitted as per their security team, Recently I was confronted by them while taking pictures of the facility and was made to delete them from my camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.80.174 (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a copyright question about this image? ww2censor (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That is a matter between the photographer and the nuclear facility and has no impact on copyright. I think you'll find that nobody can make you delete pictures from your camera. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How to dleted uploaded photos

I wanted to delete the photo because I wanted to changed them. Please help. thanks. Lolshehe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

As the info tag at the top of the edit page says "This page is for questions about copyright on images and media on Wikipedia. If you have a question about how to use Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk." Briefly, you don't have to delete photos if you want to change something in it. You can upload a new photo over an old version. Just make sure you use the same file name (or use the "Upload a new version of this file" link under the "File History" section on the image's page). -Andrew c [talk] 15:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
To answer your question, template:db-self may help as well.-Andrew c [talk] 15:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] No copyright

I uploaded an image (File:Hasyim_Muzadi.jpg) which i found from www.swaramuslim.net. At the bottom of the website it says in Indonesian that there is no copyright, and it is not prohibited to copy, reproduce, or distribute. I need help for the license. Thank You. Dre.comandante (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The bottom of the page says "NO COPYRIGHT©". Then it says "TIDAK DILARANG KERAS mengcopy, memperbanyak, mengedarkan untuk kemaslahatan bersama syukur Alhamdulillah sumber artikel dicantumkan", which (I think) specifies that only the article text is free of copyright. But then it says "Copyright © Sep 2002" and "All rights reserved", so it's very confused. Regardless, the website often reprints images that it does not hold the copyright to, such as [3] and [4]. So I wouldn't say that the images from here are free. – Quadell (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] movie wiki photos

I want to start heavily updating some movie wikipedia articles that are neglected. This includes adding production stills and the movie poster in the top right hand corner. How do I check if a picture is acceptable to be downloaded and then uploaded to wikipedia? Is it safe to assume they are in the public domain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jules90 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, very few movie posters and production stills are in the public domain. Most are copyrighted, so they can only be used under our strict non-free content criteria. In general, it is usually acceptable for one non-free image (a poster or a still) to be used as the main infobox at the top of the article. Other images are only used if they are particularly important to the article, are discussed in text, and convey information that could not be conveyed by text alone. More than four or five non-free images are almost never acceptable. But these will all have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. – Quadell (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to partially dissent here. In years of using U.S. copyright registration and renewal records, I have yet to see the copyright renewed on any production still published before 1964 from a U.S. motion picture. And no, there is no case law establishing that stills are protected under the parent film's copyright. (Presumably an assemblage of stills that told the film's story would create a derivative work and be a violation of the film's copyright.) Likewise, I've yet to see the U.S. copyright renewed of any U.S. movie poster published before 1964. — Walloon (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Question from non-expert: Isn't a still just a frame from the movie? If so, doesn't the movie's copyright attach to such a still? – ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
A frame from a film would be covered under the same copyright as the film itself, just as much as a page from a book is held under the copyright of the book itself. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, Walloon. I would suspect that a movie poster of a copyrighted movie is a derivative work of the film itself. – Quadell (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
No, a still is not the same thing as frame enlargement. Stills are taken separately by a still photographer with a still camera (usually on a 4 x 5 negative), before or after the scene has been filmed by the motion picture camera. — Walloon (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting, thanks for the info. So what was usually done with these stills? Were they offered for sale to the general public? I ask because there are some intriguing possibilities here. It's possible that the stills were published before the film itself, which would mean that the stills cannot be derivative works of the film. Let me explain. There is some disagreement about when a film is "published" according to copyright law. Here I quote from "The Public Domain" by Stephen Fishman: "Like any work of authorship, a film is published for copyright purposes when the copyright owner or someone acting on his or her behalf makes copies available to the general public. In other words, any interested member of the public may obtain a copy. Burke v. National Broadcasting Co., 598 F.2d 688 (9th Cir. 1979). Publication only occurs when copies of a film are made available to the public for purchase, rental, or loan. Showing a film to the public in theaters or on television does not constitute publication for copyright purposes. This is true even if thousands or millions of people have seen the film." Fishman goes on to explain that when a studio allows its clients access to film reels, or sells the reels themselves only to select partners, the film is not "published" according to the courts. And of course before the advent of video tape, films were not generally available for sale. Before the 1976 copyright law, unpublished works were not protected by federal law (though they were still protected by common law copyright). All these film were immediately covered by the 1976 law when it took effect in 1978, but before then they had no federal copyright status. The stills and posters, if "published", would have been covered. If a piece of film paraphernalia was published before 1976, based on an "unpublished" film, the paraphernalia cannot be held to be a derivative work of the film. – Quadell (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
"Because films were rarely made available for public sale, determining an official publication date has been difficult for these older films. However, a consensus has developed among copyright experts, the film industry, and the courts that films were published for copyright purposes when copies were placed in exchanges for distribution to theater operators. American Vitagraph, Inc. v. Levy, 659 F.2d 1023 (9th Cir. 1981)." Fishman, 4th ed., p. 166. Stills and posters are published separately from the film, almost always before the film to generate advance publicity and audience interest. In the pre-1964 era I am talking about, stills were sent in press packets to newspapers and magazines, and stills and posters were transferred to companies (most commonly the National Screen Service from 1940 to the mid-1980s) that specialized in distributing publicity materials to theaters. (More here.) — Walloon (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Share and Enjoy"?

I uploaded a photo for the entry on yarnbombing. I've seen this image on several blogs and on several websites dedicated to the practice or to offbeat art. The image was posted on a blog by Oberholtzer Creative Staff at 3:24 pm, January 25, 2009, with the mark, "Share and enjoy." [5] However, the article in The Telegraph that was the main source for the wikipedia article cites the picture as belonging to BNPS. Is this image appropriate for Wikipedia? If so, which tag should it receive? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, have you considered contacting the original creator? The link you posted referred to a yarnbomb blog who attributed it to Magda Sayeg of knittaplease.com. That website has a contact page (here). Perhaps you could ask if they'd be willing to release it into the public domain, or license it via GFDL or similar?
Incidentally, the "share and enjoy" is entirely unrelated. That's just the description of the links for digg, stumbleupon, etc. Certainly not anything to do with licensing. 139.57.100.104 (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to ask the copyright holder for GFDL permission, we have a helpfile at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. – Quadell (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The blog lists Oberholtzer Creative Staff as the image's posters, but Telegraph lists BNPS, Bournemouth News and Picture Service as the image's owners. Any clue what's going on? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
They're probably just guessing, or attaching boilerplate text that isn't always accurate. The Telegraph is more likely to be correct, but I'd suggest contacting BNPS and asking them if they hold the copyright. – Quadell (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:KevinWuniformtemplate.PNG

I uploaded File:KevinWuniformtemplate.PNG as a cleaned-up version of another user's template to allow the other user to replace his template with the cleaned version. I'm not sure which type of copyright tagging to use. Any help would be appreciated. --Kevin W. 05:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the original (by User:JohnnySeoul) is licensed under {{cc-by-3.0}}, your derivative can be released under any license that insists that JohnnySeoul be credited. It would be simplest to release it under {{cc-by-3.0}} as well. – Quadell (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{PD-PhilippinesPubDoc}} and the Philippines' law

There is a question at the copyright talk page concerning the accuracy of this template, which is transcribed to a number of images. Please weigh in if you have input. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GasBuddy Image

Hi,

We have recentlt uploaded an image. The image is GasBuddyGasPriceMap.png. This image was removed from our sandbox page, saying that it does not have the proper copyright information. All ofthe images that we have uploaded are images that we the GasBuddy Organization have created entirely on our own. These images are avaiable on the internet on any of our 185 gas price websites. Please restore this image GasBuddyGasPriceMap.png. as we are not breaking any copyright laws by displaying ths image as it is our own.

Regards,

Trevor Dewildt GasBuddy.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gasbuddy (talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

When you upload an image, you need to state how it is licensed. If you created the image yourself, then you are free to license it however you want. Here are some suggestions: WP:ICTIC. When you upload an image, there is a drop down menu on the upload page for licensing. You have to choose a license from that drop down menu, or else the image will be deleted. Alternatively, if you forgot to choose a license when you uploaded the file, you can add the tag after the fact (i.e. adding {{PD-self}} for a public domain image or {{GFDL-self}} for a GFDL image or {{cc-by-3.0}} for the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license, etc.) If this image was published outside of wikipedia, you'll need to send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. Good luck.-Andrew c [talk] 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You may also want to read about wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest particularly if you make the contents of User:Gasbuddy/Sandbox into an article. Also note the your user name is related to a business it may be blocked from editing please also read WP:SPAMNAME. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Just saw File:GasBuddy-Logo.gif. I've tagged it as lacking permission, as this clearly is a company/webpage logo that was published outside of Wikipedia. If you created this, just follow the instructions and send an e-mail in to the OTRS team.-Andrew c [talk] 22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The gasbuddy.com website disclaimer says, “GasBuddy Inc. reserves all rights and copyrights the site text, site images, site code, content, and usage of the GasBuddy.com web site. Use of any information found on any web site of GasBuddy Organization is not permitted without express written consent from GasBuddy Organization Inc.” This contradicts the public domain tag. —teb728 t c 22:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Correct Copyright tag

I asked a user in Flickr if I could use a picture that's in is account in Wikipedia 2 days ago, and today he gave the the ok to do so but I don't know the correct copyright tag to use that will not result in speedy deletion. Please help. It's a picture of a college office building. Thanks Ceddy 06 21:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you ask the user to change the license on the flickr page? That is really the best and easiest way to go. There are 2 acceptable licensing options that flickr offers that are compatible with wikipedia. Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) and Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA). If the flickr user hasn't done so already, ask them to pick the best license for them and change the image. From there, a bot can easily upload the image to the Commons for you. If the flickr user did not specify a license in your correspondences, then you cannot upload the image on Wikipedia yet. We have to know how the flickr user intends to distribute the image. Neither you or I can make that decision as we are not the image creator (copyright holder). Finally, permission to use an image on Wikipedia is not good enough. The way wikipedia is licensed, we allow reuse, modification, and commercial use of our work, the all images need to be compatible with that mission (and if someone wants an image just on Wikipedia, but no where else, that is too bad because Wikipedia is licensed in a manner which already allows reuse). Yeah, I know it's a bit complicated, but it's part of being a free encyclopedia. -Andrew c [talk] 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Champions eague final 2009.jpg

Is this photograph allowable on Wikipedia? It appears to be a photograph of the television broadcast of the 2009 UEFA Champions League Final, which leads me to believe that it is probably subject to the copyrights of either UEFA or the network broadcasting the match. Any insight? – PeeJay 00:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It does indeed seem to be a photo of the television broadcast. In which case the author may not claim it as his "own work". decltype (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Speedied; copyvio. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It's back so I have tagged it again for G12. – ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2 v 3

Having received emailed permission from the photographer, I just uploaded a photo from Flickr and forwarded the permission email to OTRS. The photographer stated, "I'd like attribution, if you'd work that out. But other than that feel free to use as you see fit"; accordingly, I tagged it with 2.0. After doing that, I discovered 3.0. What's the difference between the two? And if there is a difference, which one is more applicable to such a statement? Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Attribution}} is probably the best tag to use for such a statement. – Quadell (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure his email permits anyone to use it for anything? Or did it just say that Wikipedia can use it? The part you quote sounds like the latter, which is not acceptable. —teb728 t c 03:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I specified in my original email (just a few lines long, so she can't have missed it) that Wikipedia didn't accept anything that was only permitted for Wikipedia, and that anyone else had to be allowed to use it. Accordingly, I'm interpreting the email as "do anything that you want as long as you credit me". By the way, would someone please explain the difference between 2 and 3? Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Please read, if you have a chance, what I wrote under "Correct Copyright tag", two topics up. If the uploader doesn't state "I release my work under the license xxx", it isn't best to assume they meant one license or another. For flickr users, it is always best (and easiest) for them to simply choose a license that flickr offers. Sending flickr mail to OTRS is hard to verify for the OTRS volunteers because flickrmail hides the users e-mail addresses. Furthermore, Commons has an automated flickrreview process which is more reliable and faster than OTRS. Why waste the time of OTRS volunteers when there is flickrreview?
To answer your question, the summary text of the two licenses is identical. The full text is different. See for yourself. And here are pages that explain the difference. -Andrew c [talk] 13:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I have no Flickr account, so I have no way to contact her that way. Instead, I observed (after Dtbohrer pointed it out to me) that in her profile she links to her blog, where her personal email address is posted, so I emailed that with my own personal email. And as far as flickrreview: this is only the second time that I've uploaded a picture from Flickr (the first time being just a few days ago; you can see in the recent archives a question that I asked here then), so I'm not familiar with how to get it to work. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AC Alles

Further to my query, and to your response that I seek permission from the publishers to reproduce Mr Alles's photograph in Wikipedia, I may state that all his books were published by him, and hence I believe the said photograph was a private one. Otherwise he would have given credit to the said photograph. Your advise please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qnyafs (talk • contribs) 16:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Permission to use on Wikipedia is insufficient. The image must be released under a free license. Otherwise, it must be used under terms of fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese copyright

While deleting orphaned nonfree images, I came across File:Slaves whose eyes cut off under Dalai regime 1.jpg and File:Music instrument made by thighbones of young girls under Dalai Lama's regime re.jpg, which were tagged both as orphaned nonfree and as public domain! I was unfamiliar with the situation, so I changed the date on the orphaned-since-date template to today to give them a little more time before deletion. Could someone examine the copyright status of these images, and then (1) delete them or undo my postponement, or (2) clarify their PD status? Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  • File:Music instrument made by thighbones of young girls under Dalai Lama's regime re.jpg "Therefor it is clear that the copyright holders make the picture publically available" and "implies the copy right owner (Chines authority) grant the picture to be redistributed as as Non-free promotional in term of WikiPedia." This is really quite clear. An implication that something is free does not make it free. We have to have verifiable evidence the image is free for all purposes, including commercial. That is not present with this image. Therefore, it must be used under fair use here.
  • File:Slaves whose eyes cut off under Dalai regime 1.jpg "Therefor it is clear that the copyright holders make the picture publically available" Same case as above. Making something publicly available doesn't make it free of copyright or available under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Free Software Logo?

Can the logo for free software be used as free use, or as fair use? Like the logo for Google Chrome, which is free software. Would the logo be free use then?--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it's free software doesn't make the logo free. (Wikipedia's logo isn't free, for instance.) So {{Non-free logo}} would be best. – Quadell (talk) 3:59 pm, Today (UTC−4)

[edit] how to correctly document photos

I have struggled with this page (I'm new at this) and thought I had it in good shape. I wasn't sure how to document the photos so asked for help in the Wiki Commons area. They told me the image of the book could be posted directly into the article without going through WIki Commons according to Fair Use policy. I did that. You can see my question and the answer there - it's # 2.23.

Then the author's picture they told me could be used IF the person owning the copyright would give their permission. I emailed the author and he told me the photographers name but that he totally owned the copyright to the photo and that he gave his permission to use it. So I used {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} as I was told to do.

The image files are these: File:Columbinebookcover.jpg and File:davecullen.jpg Columbine author Dave Cullen.

Now I've gotten messages in my talk area that both of these are wrong. (They also say a third file is wrong but I didn't upload a third one.) Any help or advice you can offer would be most welcome. I'm very frustrated.

Please reply to my talk area.

Thank you,

Wikiboss43 Wikiboss43 (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I repled on the user's talk page. —teb728 t c 03:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed PD tags on Scanned Postcards

An editor recently scanned several postcards and placed the images in the Pittsfield, Massachusetts article - the majority are stated to be from the early 1900s, and so would seem to be in the public domain, but a few are from the 1950s and 60s, and I believe they might be copyvios. Could someone please take a look at them? Files in question include File:Downtown Pittsfield 1960s-1.JPG, File:The Maplewood 1930-1.JPG, File:North Street 1957-1.jpg, and File:Aerial Downtown Pittsfield looking East-1.jpg. The uploader, User:Aaronlife, tagged the postcards as {{PD-Pre1978}}, but I am not sure what his/her claim of "published without copyright" is based on if the publishing company and photographer are listed. Others such as File:New Pittsfield High.-1.JPG (and countless more on the Pittsfield page) don't have dates, so I'm not sure if {{PD-US}} is appropriate either. Thanks, Rai•me 01:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is no © notice on the postcards anywhere, and the images on the postcards had not been previously published in a different place that had a © notice, (and if they were first published before 1978), then these postcards are in the public domain and are tagged correctly. – Quadell (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks - just wanted to check. Cheers, Rai•me 02:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions"
Personal tools