Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alawa (talk | contribs) at 01:46, 13 August 2011 (→‎designer of record jacket: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

Skip to the bottom


    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

    Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.

    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:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
      • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
      • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
      • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
    3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), 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 Publish changes.
    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 start a new discussion" 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.
    Note for those replying to posted questions

    If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

    Click here to start a new discussion

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)


    The Avro Arrow

    Would I be correct in thinking that the Image:AvroArrow1.jpg on the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow has finally passed out of copyright (50 years for a Govt image would have expired in 2009). Or am I misinterpreting Copyright Act of Canada & List of countries' copyright length. It would not have been possible to photo the aircraft after 1959 as all 5 prototypes were destroyed ? the picture is pulled from [1] which has a copyright notice of [2]. If that IS the case is there a proper method for changing the license on that image? (I am limiting my question to this one particular image, but the outcome could affect others also). Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If the photo was taken by the Canadian Government, then it was held under Crown Copyright. (If it was taken by a private individual, then different rules would apply.) If it was under Crown Copyright, then the copyright has expired in Canada, and in Canada it would be considered PD. The question is: would it be PD in the U.S.?
    It is true that some Canadian works whose copyright has expired in Canada may still be considered copyrighted in the U.S. (For instance, if my father published a photo in Canada in 1948, then the copyright on the photo would have expired in Canada, and anyone could reproduce the photo in Canada without my permission. However, assuming it had not been published in the U.S. prior to 1978, the copyright would still be honored in the U.S. due to the damned URAA, and I could sue you for copying the photo in the U.S. We could not publish such a photo on Wikipedia.)
    So Crown Copyright is a little different. This is a case where the Canadian Government owned the copyright to the photo, and the Canadian Government makes the rules about copyright, and they claim the copyright is expired. Canada could, perhaps, sue in U.S. court to block someone from copying or publishing Image:AvroArrow1.jpg, even though they have decided not to consider it copyrighted in Canada, and the U.S. could honor that copyright. So far as I know, no country's government has ever done anything like that. But who knows, it's uncharted territory.
    For UK Crown Copyright, the British Office of Public Sector Information has written to Wikimedia to explicitly decree that UK Crown copyright expires world-wide, not just in the UK. But the Canadian government hasn't written such a letter. That's why {{PD-BritishGov}} allows photos published before mid-1957, while {{PD-Canada}} only allows photos published up to 1948, even though the Crown holds the copyright in both cases.
    If I had my druthers, then the letter that the UK OPSI wrote would be assumed in all cases: if a country's government does not consider its own works copyrighted, and has shown no inclination to claim foreign copyright on these works, then we should consider them PD worldwide. But I'm not the only Wikipedian with opinions. – Quadell (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As it (the aircraft) was commissioned by the RCAF, I am assuming all images on a Govt website are their property. Might be about time to fire off an email asking their position of what the copyright status is. Any ideas about the 'proper process' of changing the license on the Commons hosted images ? Should they be deleted & re-uploaded with any new license if they have indeed moved out of copyright? Or can they simply be edited to their new status. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 13:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I suggest that you talk to User:Bzuk, who is IRL an expert on the subject?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are Crown Copyright, then they are PD in Canada. However I don't think Commons will host the images, since there is suspicion they are not PD in the US. – Quadell (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost certainly not. I've used PD Canada images, but I'm certain Commons won't have them.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats what I am hoping to head off by only aquiring images from a Govt server. Shouldn't that head off any suspicion of non-PD problems below the 49th ?? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid not. Goverment websites frequently republish photographs whose copyright is held by private individuals or organizations, I'm sorry to say. They don't make it easy to tell what's Crown Copyright and what's not. – Quadell (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to upload that photo to Commons, the only real problem is to provide evidence (or a compelling reason to believe) that it was published more than 50 years ago (not only that it was created then). Cf. sections 2.2 and 12 of the Canadian Copyright Act. As for the other objections raised above, they may be a problem on Wikipedia but I do not think that they would be a problem on Commons. The source website of the Canadian Air Force identifies the photo as a Canadian Forces photo. I don't know why we should suspect that it was not "prepared by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department". Commons should normally accept their word about it, unless there is some conflicting evidence somewhere. I think that Commons also has a practice of accepting government images that are not copyrighted in the country in question, under the general assumption that a government would not claim a copyright it might have in other countries on works that are not copyrighted at home. It may not be an official Commons policy or a constant practice, but it has been applied in several occasions. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already sent a Email to Canadian Heritage Dept, which within 24hr they forwarded to the correct IP dept. asking what the current copyright status is of all the Avro images on the aforementioned gov't www page. We will see what they have say. Cross your fingers :> Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Got a reply back today, Its kinna funny in a legal mumbo-jumbo way. Basically, they didnt give an direct awnser, but the implication is that "the duration of copyright is perpetual for Crown works where the work has not been published", and the internet does not count as published. So I gather from that, if it can be pointed to in a published source prior to 50yr ago, we could get the ones from their site (as long as DND is identified as the source & and its not claimed to be an Official version). I will forward the email to anyone that wishes it. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Need help.

    I want to share an image, a picture I took, that really captures the look and feel of the place. I have been going there for over 20 years and just got the picture I have always wanted! I want to share, but it is my picture, I do not care if other people use it? I just do not want them taking my original picture and stating it was theirs. Took me 20 years plus to get this picture.

    If any one can help me that would be great. Not sure really what do.

    Also, this image would be about a state park, of a light house in FL, that is famous around the world, and connects to one of best places to fish or Tarpon.

    Hope this is right area for this? If not I am sorry, and if so, could please help get to the right place? I would really like this image to be up on the web to be seen.

    Thank you,

    Rdbbwsc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdbbwsc (talk • contribs) 18:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you can license your image on the condition you be given credit.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But note that per WP:CREDITS, the credit is given on the image information page, not in captions in articles where the image is used. – ukexpat (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To put it in practical terms, if you go to the Special:Upload page, or, preferably, commons:Special:Upload, and then, in the field at the bottom under "licensing", choose one of the options that say "own work, attribution required", that will add a statement of the kind you want, giving other users the right to use your file but with the obligation of acknowledging you as the author. – BTW, since you say it's a good picture of a certain place, if you like, and if you upload it through the "commons" upload form, I could then show you the little trick necessary to make your image appear also on Googlemaps and similar geographical sites. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Are these recent "fair use" images ok?

    Hey everybody! I've recently uploaded a couple "fair use" images for use in the Wiki American Pickers and would like an admin or an editor with more experience uploading photos, logos, etc. to check and make sure I filled out all the documentation stuff correctly. Basically I used the "monkey see, monkey do" method -- imitating how other, presumably ok, fair use logos/pics were done. If I've not done them correctly any helpful advice much appreciated. Sorting out all the various licensing mumbo jumbo really makes my head spin sometimes. lol. Thanks, and have a great Wiki kinda day. Sector001 (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    CC-BY?

    Is it safe to assume that a document is under CC BY if it states that "The material in this publication may be reproduced if [publisher and authors] is acknowledged as the source"? How much attribution do I need to give? Is it then safe for me to copy and paste? Thanks in advance. --Σ talkcontribs 02:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To the extent of my knowledge it is safe. To be safe I would include in-text attribution as well as a reference. I would also provide attribution in the edit summary. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in my opinion because the statement is not clear enough. The statement does not confirm that commercial use or modifications are permitted, so one could interpret it as being one of several free or unfree CC licences. If a specific CC licence is not specified we should not assume anything not specifically stated. Try to contact the copyright holder and ask them to release the image under a free licence. ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only is it not safe to assume, it is certain that this wording is not a CC-by license. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly not CC. Possibly (and I mean very possibly) {{Attribution}}. –Drilnoth (T/C) 20:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While this is not a CC license, I think using it should be fine. The copyright holder is clearly intending to allow the material to be used with a single condition (acknowledgement). I don't see a hidden "...if used non-commercially" any more than a hidden "...if you pay me a million bucks" in there. I think {{Copyrighted free use provided that|([publisher and authors] is acknowledged)}} would be fine. – Quadell (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So if the aforementioned footnote were placed on a text document, are the attribution templates usable if I copied or closely paraphrased it? --Σ talkcontribs 22:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If the text is released under a free license, then there are no legal problems with reusing the text, so long as it's properly attributed. However, we usually don't reuse text word-for-word on Wikipedia (or even a close paraphrase), because it almost always has problems with bias or an unencyclopedic tone. – Quadell (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is an inline citation sufficient attribution, or do I need to use something like {{country study}}? --Σ talkcontribs 00:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with ww2censor; our license requires that modification be permitted, and this statement doesn't say anything about it. :/ I don't think we can regard that as compatible. Certainly, it's not CC-By, which specifically permits "remixing" the work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    kevin moody

    Are newspaper articles allowed as a public domain picture? I'm trying to build this Wicki page but am not the most sophisticated Wiki donater! Please advise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DorothyParkertoo (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unless it is specifically licenced as public domain or has fallen into the public domain due to age. However, you can use a newspaper article as a reference. ww2censor (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of references. I'd suggest checking out WP:REFSTART. Back to the picture question... you could see if the subject of the article would donate a picture to the Wikimedia Commons or if somebody else could take a picture and donate it there. (Donating it to Commons would mean that the copyright holder would have to agree that the picture could be used by anybody for any use.) Cloveapple (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    poppy tea article

    Your entry draws a lot from my widely available and seminal work "confessions of an ebay opium addict" I dont mind if you use my work, but at least give me credit for it. thanks, DELETED

    Thanks for telling us about this. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, occasionally we run into problems with plagiarism or copyright violation. I'll submit this issue to the appropriate committee to review. – Quadell (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed this on MRG's talk page. Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6, and Page 7 look fine. Considering our article is written in the third person and his is in the first, a copy and paste is quite unlikely. However, if we have similar information it may be wise to cite his article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree. :) Mr. Thompson, could you identify some of the specific passages in our article that you feel are drawn from your essay? Your essay was much more fun to read than the article, so it's possible that I've missed something. We want to be sure you're properly attributed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    University logo claimed to be licensed under Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

    File:Univoflondon crest.png

    The logo at the top of the infobox at University of London was changed in this edit from a non-free logo with a valid rationale to the one (linked to above) that is claimed to be the own work of User:FPN by User:82.22.255.158. I question whether that user is permitted to claim the logo as licensed under CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication. Can someone take a look at this, as I suspect this might be a copyright violation. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Do not hesitate to revert the change. Similar uploads from an account with the same username on Wikipedia were deleted after being listed on WP:PUI [3]. The upload logs of the two accounts on Wikipedia [4] (2007-2008) and on Commons [5] (2008-2011) show that they are into the bad habit of claiming own work about images taken from the net. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted to the logo that was well discussed on the article talk page a few days ago and nominated his last two commons images for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Radio show clarification?

    Music clips are mentioned repeatedly, but not clips from radio shows, non-CC podcasts, audiobooks, etc. Is there a specific Wikimedia statement about their fair use? My thought is that a fair use clip would have utility for WP:Verifiability of claims in articles, where ephemera like radio shows would have no other archival verifiable source. Seems like fair use should apply straightforwardly, with clips of, say 20-30 seconds or less, given that shows vary from 30 minutes to several hours. The show has been published (or broadcast), no free replacement is usually available, and such a clip could have no effect on the author's ability to profit. --Lexein (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We generally don't host non-free material on Wikipedia servers for the purpose of verification. For instance, if someone uploads a photo of a small section of a (non-free) newspaper article, this is routinely deleted as failing NFCC#1, since text would serve the same purpose. I suspect that a text transcript of a section of an audio interview (or whatever) would serve the same purpose. – Quadell (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If verification is improper use, well, then there are a lot of articles with improperly used images. I should state that the news photograph counterexample isn't the right one: newspapers (and their photographs) are not ephemeral, and are verifiable in other ways; they're also archived regularly in a variety of for-profit and non-profit entities.
    Closer to the issue at hand, television shows are ephemeral (like radio), but they have an archival life, in the form of free and paid downloads, and official releases on DVD (formerly VHS). As a result, at Wikipedia, individual television episodes (and movies) are exhaustively documented with extreme text detail (examination of credits frames for production numbers, and so on) and fair-use screenshots based solely on DVR, DVD, and legal (and illegal) downloads, _not_ independent reliable sources. Ok, so TV and film have WP:OR latitude, as primary sources.
    However, based on your assertions above, audio media does not appear to have the same documentary leniency at Wikipedia, and this resembles undue bias for television and against radio articles. If fair-use screenshots are permitted to "illustrate" articles about TV shows and movies, then fair-use (small, non-commercially impacting) audio samples should also be permitted for non-music audio articles. The primary medium determines the form of the fair use "illustration": text quotes for news, images for visual medium articles, and, by the same logic, audio samples for audio-medium articles. The understandable assertion that "text description should be good enough", should be applied evenly for all media articles, not solely against fair use of non-music audio content. Seems like enforcement of this dictum would result in a large number of imageless and musicless articles, a huge backlash, and a reminder that Wikipedia is not intended to be text only (WP:RICHMEDIA).
    Back on point, Wikipedia already stores fair-use media (images, music) under the rubric of "illustration", when it really is used for verification: X musician plays hip-hop, here's a cite, and here's a sample. The Y show is animated, and here's a screenshot. The Z radio show host said "Q", (claim only partially supported by independent RS), and here's the (very short) audio quote.(claim fully supported by primary source). Help me understand what the real problem is, if I'm just not getting it yet.
    Just saying. --Lexein (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Television shows and radio shows are not treated any differently. If a (non-free) screenshot of a television show were uploaded and hosted on Wikipedia only to provide verification for a claim (e.g. "Starring Kate Winslet"), the image would be deleted. To be kept, a non-free image has to provide information that words alone cannot convey. Audio files are treated in the exact same way. – Quadell (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, a brief clip from an audio program can be included in an article on the subject, if that clip fulfills all our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Brief music samples are often included in articles about albums, and there's so reason this couldn't be done for audio shows in an article about that particular show. But keep in mind: the purpose of this is to give the reader information about what the show sounds like, not to verify assertions made in the article. (Perhaps WP:V is a red herring here?) – Quadell (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I appreciate your wading through my verbiage. For me, verification isn't a red herring, because verifiability of ephemeral media is a nightmare. I can listen to a radio show (or a bootleg of it, or a rebroadcast of it, or an anthologization of it), glean some relevant fact related to an article, then quote (or paraphrase) and inline cite it in that article. But since other Wikipedia readers might not be able to verify my claim and citation, some eager editor will delete that cited content as a violation of WP:V - this is the nightmare scenario. It is a substantial chilling effect against the use of ephemeral media as reliable sources. I blathered on about OR in TV articles because verifiability is relatively easier, since DVR (VCR), legal download, and physical media are frequently available, whereas _none_ of the above are typical for radio broadcasts. There, bootlegs are frequently the only evidence that a broadcast took place at all; it's uncommon for broadcasters to make available full archives of their shows, even on a paid basis.
    In my opinion, that chilling effect is an inherent Wikipedia bias against radio as (even primary) source. This impedes the Wikipedia goal of including content that is reliably sourced by all potential reliable, notable sources. A policy shift towards archiving of specific fair-use audio samples for the purpose of verification would go far in addressing this inherent bias. Of course, the argument can be made, "Who cares? Who's on radio that anybody cares about?" But that's another bias against potential reliable, notable sources. To me, it's an open question, and I'm not at all sure this is the right place to discuss it, "Should Wikipedia's sourcing policies be biased towards easy verifiability, or accommodate all possible verifiability?" --Lexein (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How to change an image license

    I created and uploaded the following image (some time ago), but I accidentally used the wrong license - I wish no copyright claim or license, and meant for it to be released, so it could be used everywhere.

    How do I change the license from non-free, to free?

    File:Anim-jswilly.gif

    a_man_alone (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Even though you created the animated gif, the underlying figure is (presumably) copyrighted by Bug-Byte / Software Projects. Since you didn't create the character, you can't actually release the image under a free license. – Quadell (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Image posting

    I'm trying to upload some images that I created and then were published in a series of articles which I was an author in the American Journal of Sports Medicine. They have been taken down twice now, and I would like to know correct way to tag or site them so they will not be removed in future. I was given permission by the journal, provided that I indicate the copyright is held by The American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine. The journal guidelines for permission can be found here.

    http://www.sagepub.com/repository/binaries/journals/permissions/author_use.doc

    Please let me know the proper way to upload the images

    Than you Cmpierce2 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you created the images yourself it depends on what arrangement you made with the publication. Did you retain copyright of the images or give up your copyright? If the former, then you can release the images under whatever free licence you want but if you are no longer the copyright holder you may be able to get them to release the images you want under a freely licenced copyright by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. On reading the link above the publication's permissions it specifically does not allow commercial use, so it depends on who owns the copyright now. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Explaining further: It might seem that since Wikipedia itself is non-commercial, a commercial use license would not be needed. But Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content; so Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only in Wikipedia. Except in extraordinary circumstances Wikipedia requires a license that allows reuse by anyone for anything including adaptation and commercial use. —teb728 t c 19:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspiciuous uploads

    I don't know quite where to put this.

    Over the course of about a year, user Christian Adrian uploaded images from (in reverse chronological order): Sony CYBERSHOT, Canon PowerShot A430, Canon PowerShot A530, Panasonic DMC-FX8, NIKON D70, and Canon PowerShot A95 cameras. Half of his images had those in their metadata, the other half had no metadara.

    I find the whole affair suspicious, but I wanted to double check with everyone else before going any further. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You know what? After reading through User talk:Cristian Adrian, I think that it might just be best to delete all of this user's uploads as copyright violations. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nominated them all for PUF here. – Quadell (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Uploading an academic institution's logo - Unsure about its copyright status

    Hi, I would like to upload the logo of the American University, Washington College of Law to the Washington College of Law page and I am not sure about the image's copyright status. I have seen logos for almost every other school displayed on the information box for the schools on their wikipedia pages and would like the Washington College of Law to have that same honor. I have attempted to upload an image but am new to Wikimedia editing and have no idea how to do so in a manner that will comport with copyright laws. I have clicked on other logos I have seen and notice that they contain a disclaimer about a non-free media use rationale for using the photo because they are logos of an academic institution. I would like to be advised about how I can do the same for the Washington College of Law logo, which can be found at the top of the main page for the school's website: http://www.wcl.american.edu/ The specific image I am discussing is file:logo_white_blue.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyartemis133 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You uploaded it to Commons, which was probably a mistake because it is probably free enough for Commons. I recommend you upload it to Wikipedia, tagged with {{non-free logo}} and using {{logo fur}} for the non-free use rationale. (It’s not a copyright issue, but it would look better if you had a version with a margin.)—teb728 t c 04:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I think TEB728 means "not free enough for commons", but before you can upload it here you have to be an autoconfirmed user which requires you are registered for more than 4 days and have made at least 10 edits. ww2censor (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, you're right: it's not free enough. As another note, when you upload it, give it a more descriptive name than logo_white_blue.png. —teb728 t c 11:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    USS Thomas passengers manifest

    Hello there gentlemen: One of our streets in my hometown of Ivana, Batanes, Philippines is named after a Thoamsite who was assigned here sometime in 1902. His name is William Edmonds. My father, who died in 1964, had told me as a child about Edmonds. I want to write about Edmonds, but first, I want to know which trip of the ship was he on board for the Philippines. Also, I would like to find out from where in the USA did he come from. Thank you! --- Commnader Jack E. Castano III (Ret), Philippine Navy (email removed for privacy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.23.210 (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That doesn't appear to be a media copyright question. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.7 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related media copyright issues. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. —teb728 t c 08:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I upload the school logo onto the user page set up by madabucharest on the International British School of Bucharest? If so, how can I do this?

    I would also like to upload some photos relating to what has been written, such as the Planet BSB logo and a photo of the British Ambassador with the school debating team. We have the permission from the British Embassy to do this and the students in the photo.

    I would the like to post the user page to the following link pages:

    Categories: Education in Bucharest | International schools in Romania | High schools in Bucharest | Educational institutions established in 2000

    How can I do this?

    Username: Madabucharest User ID: 15099488

    Thank you for your help.

    Mada 10:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)mada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madabucharest (talk • contribs)

    Since the logo is not free licensed, you can't upload it until you move your draft, User:Madabucharest, to article space. You also can't upload it until your account is 4 days old. Then you can upload it at Special:Upload, tagging it with {{non-free logo}} and using {{logo fur}} for the non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 11:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As for a photo: If you took the photo yourself or if the photographer has licensed it under a free license (one which allows reuse by anyone for anything), you can upload it at Commons:Special:Upload, tagging it with the specific free license. (See Help:Files for details on uploading and using images.)
    As for categories: Wait till you move the draft to article space before you add categories. —teb728 t c 11:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Photo Usage

    I have been asked to help put together a wiki page for a certain notable person. This person would like me to add a certain photo. I have permission from the photographer and the subject of the photo as I know them both personally. How do I make sure that the use of any of the images, be it of the subject or the subject's work, don't get taken down. Last time I attempted to do the photos, they all were taken down, I am unsure of how to remedy this to make sure it is proven correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikkisixx (talk • contribs) 01:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:IOWN. --Jayron32 01:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The copyright owner of the photograph (probably the photographer) needs to license the photograph under a free license (one that allows reuse by anyone for anything; permission for use only on Wikipedia is not enough). Your previous deletions were for images that were not free-licensed. A photo of a living person must be free-licensed. —teb728 t c 01:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (I've started a discussion with the user on his talk page. Hopefully we can clear this up.) – Quadell (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    can you copyright images created by someone else27.32.170.71 (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    no—teb728 t c 05:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Image Upload

    I have a picture of my college which is taken by my friend. He put those photose in net. I downloaded and added in wikipedia to add it in my college wiki site ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gec_logo.jpg#Summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gecskp.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gecskp_frontview.jpg ).

    Now some copyright issues are coming. In which category I can put those photos?

    please replay. thanks Sujith G [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujithmannarkkad (talk • contribs) 04:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Gec logo.jpg is fine as is. In order to keep File:Gecskp frontview.jpg the photographer needs to license it under a free license like {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}; see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle the license. I frankly can’t think of an encyclopedic use for File:Gecskp.jpg. —teb728 t c 05:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Cropping Bundesarchiv multisubject images to create single subject images

    Over the last couple of years a large number of images from the German federal archive have been uploaded. Many are fascinating images and the quality is good. Very generous and thank you. And example attached. My question:

    What is the copyright position if one wants to crop a picture so as to show just a portion of it? The attached example shows a former boss of Volkswagen with the previous King of Jordan. From it one could easily fashion a face shot just of (in the case of the entry I am looking at) Hr. Schmücker. It would not be a brilliantly flattering image, but it would be a whole lot better than what we have.

    The Bundesarchiv images are often clear, and in the past I have sometimes wondered about fashioning a picture of an individual car by cropping savagely round it in a more generalised street scene. Same question. Probably same answer...?.

    I know this wiki-expert-help-desk is likely to be staffed by persons of a legal inclination and I am happy (if you wish) for an "on the one hand ... on the other..." reply. That would almost certainly be interesting. However, if someone were able to conclude with a "yes" or a "no" .... that would be nice too.

    And many thanks for thinking on it. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The CC license [6] seems pretty clear - you can adapt the work, which would include cropping. Smallbones (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Smallbones is correct. Crop all you want. You may want to include links from one image to the others. – Quadell (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed some of the licensing at File:Toni Schmücker extracted from Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F054865-0013, Wolfsburg, Staatsbesuch König von Jordanien.jpg. Were there other crops made? – Quadell (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1 Thank you
    2 Were there other crops made?. No. But I've thought about it before and may do more in the future and
    3 If I will, I will try and replicate the stuff you did with this one.
    Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a procedure for creating a "derivative work", and uploading it separately, so that its licensing is inherited from the original, rather than "uploading a new version" over the original - I'm not sure exactly how that's done. Anyone? --Lexein (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You will upload a separate work and will keep the same licensing from the old. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The way Charles01 did it with File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F054865-0013, Wolfsburg, Staatsbesuch König von Jordanien.jpg (original) and File:Toni Schmücker extracted from Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F054865-0013, Wolfsburg, Staatsbesuch König von Jordanien.jpg (cropped) looks right. The original has the cropped version listed in the "other_versions" parameter of the {{Information}} template, and the cropped version uses the {{extracted from}} template to credit the original. – Quadell (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Threshold of originality

    How is it determined, if an image meets the Threshold of originality needed for copyright protection? For example, why does File:Deutsche Börse.svg meet the threshold, but File:Dresdner-Bank-Logo.svg does not? What is the difference between these two images leading to this differing classification? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Deutsche Börse.svg looks as though it may be too simple for copyright. The rule is basicly simple shapes and short pieces of text are not eligible for copyright. However if you have enough of either then it will become eligible and whether this is the case is determined by courts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    silloutte version of non-free for ID

    If one has an appropriate non-free image, is a version of that image that reduces identifiable outlines and/or shapes (black/white image with numbers or letters to identify each shape), purely for uses of identifying the elements of the image that cannot be done in going to carry the copyright of the original work or would be a free image? The one example I know exists is File:Raising the Flag outline.svg for the non-free photograph; the silloutte version is on commons. Does it matter if it is from a photograph, screenshot, or non-live artistic work? Does it matter how the image is created ( eg a "edge enhanced" version of the original media acceptable?) --MASEM (t) 21:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No, this would be a derivative work of the copyrighted image, and derivative works can't be published without the consent of the copyright holder. – Quadell (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I figured, but how do we explain, then, the silloutte version of the Raising of the Flag? --MASEM (t) 23:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It should have two tags. The new, original content (color, outlines, etc.) should be licensed under a free license, which it is. But there should also be a non-free media rationale for the underlying copyrighted content. It really shouldn't be hosted on Commons, but it should pass our NFCC here. That will rather leave the Catalan and Spanish Wikipedias in a lurch, but that's unavoidable. – Quadell (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Commons

    Hi, an editor (innocently and inadvertently) uploaded the image File:Albert Schlechten.jpg to Commons, but it is a copyrighted image. I reuploaded it here as File:Albert Schlechten1.jpg and put a fair use tag on it. Can you straighten out the commons version? Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is it copyrighted? Was it not published before 1923? —teb728 t c 23:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This image may have been copyrighted at some point, but it is certainly not copyrighted anymore. All photos published in the U.S. before 1923 are in the public domain worldwide. – Quadell (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there evidence that this particular photo was published back then? The source webpage does not seem to cite any publication from that era for this photo. It says that the museum used the negative to make the webpage's photo. The museum does claim a copyright on this photo, which would normally imply that it was not published before 1923. One might question if the museum acquired the copyright at the same time they bought the photo collection, but I suppose we should assume good faith about their copyright claim, or at least we should gather some solid evidence to the contrary if we want to challenge it, and anyway if the photo was not published in a year and manner that would have made it enter the public domain, then the copyright would be held by someone. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking through their website, they claim copyright on every single photograph they display, even ones that were clearly published before 1923. It's obviously boilerplate, and it's frequently clearly inaccurate. It's true that the law applies to date of publication rather than of creation, and it's true that if this was unpublished until recently it would still be copyrighted... but in practice, we on Wikipedia almost never have the ability to prove when a work was first published. Almost none of the PD-US photographs in out historical featured pictures, for instance, have information about when they were first published, because that would set the bar impossibly high. In this case, the Schlechtens were professional photographers whose works were well-known and published in postcards around the country. They created photos in order to publish them, and all indications are that their photos were published before 1923. The only contrary evidence is a boilerplate notice from the purchaser of the photographs. (...but perhaps not of the rights -- they frequently explain how they own a negative but do not know who the photographer was, and in these cases they could not have purchased the copyrights. But they still claim copyright on those photos, e.g. this anonymous 1863 photograph.) – Quadell (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that this particular image IS copyrighted. See [7] I really wish it wasn't, but I'm afraid it is. And the museum putting a blanket copyright on everything doesn't alter matters, I fear. Given that it is a self-portrait, I doubt it was ever published as a postcard, and if not published prior to 1923, it probably falls under the life + 70 years portion of copyright law. See this [8] The up side is that WP can still use the image as fair use, just not at Commons, which I did do in an abundance of caution (but you guys deleted that version, unfortunately). I certainly would love this to be a PD image, but the museum DID purchase these images from the Schlechten family, who presumably owned all copyrights. I'm not really going to push this too much, but I know that I just had to survive a FA run on an article with some historic and untrackable images, in doing so, talked to a magazine editor who was pretty much a fan of fair use. It's an extra hassle on WP, but I guess I lean toward caution. Montanabw(talk) 20:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're seeing the same facts I am (a blanket copyright claim, often clearly incorrect; an image created in 1905 by a professional and widely-published photographer; etc.) But you seem to come to the opposite conclusion. Can others weigh in? It might help resolve this. – Quadell (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, no dispute as to age of image and credit is to "Schlechten" (though probably Alfred tripped the shutter, given that I doubt there were timers yet and crawling across those rocks would have taken a bit! =:-O ). I do think that it is unlikely the image was ever "published," though that is probably trying to prove a negative. FYI, I also raised the issue over at Commons, though, so a parallel conversation might be starting there. Sorry that I'm being a pain in the butt on this, but here's the commons link. [9]. I guess my view is that a copyright claim is a copyright claim. Montanabw(talk) 22:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my view that the uploader or proponent should have to show pre-1923 publication or other facts to show PD, when that is dispute. It's asking a lot of people guarding against copyvios to have to prove a negative.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a general thing? Do you think all pre-1923 photographs should be deleted if we can't show that they were published before 1923? Because that's a lot of photographs... including more than half of Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History. – Quadell (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it is what we should aspire to. I would say that photographs taken before 1880 would not need it as the photographer almost certainly died at least 70 years ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The "rights" line in the museum's description of this photo seems to assert a specific copyright on this photo. It is not the wording they use as boilerplate. For comparison, the Edgar photo (to which I'm guessing your link referred), and the three other photos by unknown photographers the museum's website seems to have from the period 1860-1870, all have a line that reads "Copyright restrictions available from the Museum of the Rockies Photo Archive". That seems to be their boilerplate (which is indeed quite meaningless and which I interpret as meaning "dear visitor, we did not write a status line about this image, but if you are unsure of its status, you can contact us and we will tell you if we are aware of any copyright restrictions"). But the boilerplate is not used for the Schlechten photo. Instead, for the Schlechten photo they specifically assert a copyright with the line "Copyright Museum of the Rockies". We really don't know if this photo was published. It certainly can not be assumed that professional photographers publish every shot they take. It is more likely that only a variable proportion of their takes make it to publication, although they keep the negatives and/or prints of the unpublished ones in their files and those may be interesting to see a century later. We really should not place public domain tags on works if we can not document the facts to support that statement and if there is doubt. This photo would be a perfect example of real fair use in the context of an article on the Schlechtens, as it illustrates the work of one of the photographers. So it would probably not be a problem for Wikipedia to keep it in fair use. But inciting outside reusers to believe that a work is in the public domain, when actually it may well not be, and when there is a plausible copyright claim, would be causing potential trouble without reason. As for the featured historical pictures gallery, it seems that the status of the works can be sufficiently verified from known facts, either their publication, creation date or years p.m.a., as the case may be. Anyway, "other files are incorrectly tagged" would not be a convincing argument, and if someone finds any works in that gallery whose status is in serious doubt, then the solution is to retag them for fair use, provided they meet the conditions for it. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, everyone for your replies. The image is nominated for deletion at Commons, and there's a good chance it will be deleted there, for many of the reasons mentioned above. I think we all agree that this photo will pass our NFCC regardless, so I'll restore the en.wiki version that relies on NFCC, which should work in our article at least. I still don't feel that, in general, a pre-1923 photo should be deleted simply because we can't show it's publication history. However in this case, as Asclepias points out, the museum does seem to be making a specific copyright claim on this collection only, which is different from their similar but vague statements on other photographs. And after reading one of the comment at Comments, I have to admit that the claim is plausible. – Quadell (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel rather bad about being the pain in the butt who started this, so I hope no hard feelings. I have just survived too many of these disputes and prefer to err on the side of caution. Quadell, thank you so very much for your willingness to work on this issue and for making the fix. It is restoring my faith in the general overall goodwill of wikipedians! Montanabw(talk) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Australian-Army images

    I have some questions regarding File:Australian-Army-BRIGGEN.gif. The original description site states "Created using File:Australian-Army-MAJGEN.gif as a model". I think the first question should be:

    1) Is the original still under copyright, or has it gone to public domain by now (if PD, the rest becomes more or less moot, though I'd still be interested in the answer). For more info, other images of this type are displayed here.

    If the original is still under copyright, then the sentence "Created using File:Australian-Army-MAJGEN.gif as a model" sounds like the created image is a derivative work. I don't think that there is significant added/removed in that image which would make it original enough for a new copyright. Note, the uploader (User:Pdfpdf) now states that "It was used based on a combination of Official Australian Army images and Australian War Memorial images." To me, the former seems more true, it is practically the same as the MAJGEN image, but with one object less on it.

    In any case, the image File:Australian-Army-BRIGGEN.gif was tagged as copyrighted, but without any rationales for use, and hence tagged for deletion. The uploader re-tagged the image as public domain (diff), an edit that I reverted. It is now unclear how this image should be tagged. Question:

    2) If the original is still copyrighted, is this derivative work still falling under that same copyright, even though it is not the same as the others?

    Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    May have been solved per comment from the uploader - If I see it correctly, the images mentioned here should all be re-tagged to {{PD-Australia}}. Still interested in the second question, though. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If it is 1929, then it looks clean. We run into problems in Australia, as I recall, once the fifty year rule clashes with the Hague convention date. 1946 and later, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All Australian photos taken or published before 1955 are public domain in Australia. The free trade agreement between USA and Australia makes USA recognise this public domain, overriding some earlier American laws. Army material would also be Crown copyright, lasting for 50 years in Australia. So Australian Army pictures from 1960 or before are public domain in AU and USA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So the other images (now all tagged as non-free) should be re-tagged as well if I understand this correctly? --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The best analysis is given succinctly at {{PD-Australia}}; read that template to tell just which photos can be tagged with this template and which ones can't. – Quadell (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Fast Five Trailer

    Hello. I had wanted to include this trailer (http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2265750041/) on the page as it won an award and I thought it would be interesting for readers and useful to enable them to see what kind of matter was winning a marketing award. It's 30 seconds long so I was just wondering what the situation would be here as I imagine it would just not be allowed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    designer of record jacket

    I have recently updated Herb Kawainui Kane who was, among other things, an illustrator. He created one record jacket which can be seen at http://amykstillman.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/playlist-for-mus-478b-fall-2010-himeni/ where it is #3 on the list. I would like to add the image from that blog to the Wikipedia entry for Kane under a fair use rationale. The copyright may belong to Kane's estate (he is dead) or to the record company or someone else for all I know. The entry is not about the record, but does list the jacket as his design, which is sourced. If I can use the image I will expand the discussion of the scene depicted in the jacket design, what it meant for him as a person and artist, for which I have a good source, but which would not make any sense without seeing the image. I feel this would balance the discussion of this eclectic artist's range of subject matter, and show his commercial side which is not illustrated otherwise. That is the key to the rationale. It is also a quite small image, so doubtful it has any commercial importance as a reproduction. IMO. Does this seem appropriate? While I am at it, why does the template for records not include the jacket designer? After all, that is the person whose art is being reproduced. Does anyone else share my concern that virtually all images of album covers in Wikipedia fail to credit their authors, and such information is not required as a matter of routine? Alawa (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) You bring up some interesting questions, Alawa. No, I believe that including this work of art in the Herb Kawainui Kane article would not pass our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, specifically #8. In an article about the album itself, seeing the album would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", but in an article on the artist (or in an article on "Eddie Kamae and the Sons of Hawaii", for that matter) it would not. A good parallel would be an article on a contemporary artist, e.g. Bronwyn Bancroft, whose work is all copyrighted and non-free. None of the artist's non-free works are acceptable in an article on the artist, and this is a long-standing interpretation of policy. I believe this situation is similar.
    In your other question, you ask why {{Non-free album cover}} doesn't include the album artist. It merely states that "the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the work or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question", without requiring specifics. It's actually more important for the copyright holder to be credited, rather than the creator, in non-free works. And you said yourself, you don't know who actually holds the copyright. It's often very difficult to tell. Our NFCC#10 only requires that "artist, publisher and copyright holder" be listed "where possible". It would certainly be an improvement to add that information to an image description page, but it's not a requirement to prevent an image from being deleted.
    I hope this answers your questions. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As usual, I have only imagined that I had an original thought (about the template). Thank you for showing where in the archive others have raised the issue of credit for graphic designers. For the record (ahem) I disagree with the consensus, but in the spirit of choosing one's battles, I will let it pass. Thank you for helping me understand the context and reasoning at work in the discussion. I appreciate your taking the time. Alawa (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-Free content on WP:GLAM/TNA

    User:Mr impossible left a message on my talk page [10] regarding a non free image on WP:GLAM/TNA. My bot (DASHBot) had been removing a non-free image (example) from the page under WP:NFCC#9. Is this appropriate? Or should the image be allowed to stay? Tim1357 talk 01:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ?

    recpected sir,my name is ashok.am i indian.daily i ran reverse rnning,minum 5km,maximum 10km,i ran time many more pepoles watching and take phots sir.your company using me,your company T-shirt,and shoe advicement T-shirt,i will ready to wear your T-shirt and i will running. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.84.1.24 (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Your question is unclear. Can you explain? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.7 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking media copyright questions related to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. —teb728 t c 20:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Text-only logo?

    This logo is tagged as non-free, should it be PD text-only? It's basically made up of text characters but there is some degree of design in the overlapping characters. January (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, this is a gray area. A simple text-only logo is sure to be judged ineligible for copyright if challenged in court. A complex logo with a detailed image is almost certain to be copyrighted. In between these extremes, there is simply no way to know for sure how a judge would rule in any particular situation. Unless there's a clear reason to use a logo in a way that our NFCC would not allow, we should be very cautious about which logos we affix this to. In my opinion, this logo may be artistic enough to qualify for copyright. – Quadell (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur with Quadell. I'd like to add on here, that whether we mark it as free or non-free, it really doesn't change anything. Unless we want to use the image in ways the NFCC would not permit, how it is marked has no effect. Our downstream users are just as encumbered regardless of how it is tagged. Internally, we're just as encumbered if its marked free or non-free. We gain nothing from it being marked as free that we don't already have with it being tagged non-free and judiciously used under NFCC requirements. In gray areas cases such as this, it is safest to assume it is non-free, and treat it as such. We're not a court of law, and we have no power to rule something ineligible or not. What we are is a re-user of material, with internal judgments on how that material is to be used. Our decisions on the copyrightability of something has no effect whatsoever on the real world status of the material. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Image permission grant to Wikipedia

    Is it possible for the author to give specific permission to Wikipedia for use of his photo even though he wishes to retain commercial rights with respect to users other than Wikipedia? Thank you. Steve Harnish (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, not really. I mean, they can, but it has no real effect on how we use an image here. In fact, it's a speedy deletion criteria (see Wikipedia:CSD#F3). If they wish to retain commercial rights, we'd have to treat the image as non-free, and it would have to comply with WP:NFCC in all respects. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to what Hammersoft said, if you want for Wikipedia to use an image that you hold the copyright to, you'll have to license that image under a "free license" that allows anyone (not just Wikipedia) to reuse the image for any reason (including modifications and commercial reuse). The reason is, Wikipedia is founded on free content, and we want to encourage material to be licensed so that it can be freely used by anyone. By holding to this principle, we've helped bring many thousands of images into free use that would otherwise be restricted.
    But there is an option that authors use. If you release your photograph under the {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} license, you still retain the copyright. You give anyone the right to use the image, but only under certain restrictions. For one thing, they have to credit you as the author. For another, any work they make using your image, they have to release under the cc-by-sa-3.0 license as well. So, for instance, if I wanted to use your photo in a book I publish, I would have to release my book under the cc-by-sa-3.0 license in order to do so, or else I would have to negotiate a separate agreement with you. Most publishers are not willing to do this, of course, so they prefer to purchase a separate license from the photographer. See this for more information. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    OS Open Data Licence

    Would maps prepared using data subject to the OS Open Data Licence be acceptable in a Wikipedia article? If so, what should the copyright tag be? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, upload to Commons and and tag with Commons:Template:OS OpenData. —teb728 t c 20:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Does taking figures and diagrams from academic papers count as fair use?

    Are you allowed to take figures from academic papers (as long as you cite them)? Most of the most reputable figures for science articles come from academic journal articles. I know that this definitely counts as fair use in the publishing world. Academic papers routinely take figures from other papers. Can you do this on Wikipedia?Rppeabody (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, it isn't considered fair use even. No one is entitled to ownership of facts.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=444546809"