Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under 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. 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. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Image issue

The uploader tagged this image [1] as "self-released CC-by-SA and GFDL". However, they are screenshots of a copyrighted and non open-source (but free) program. I tagged them with "non-free screenshot", but I am not certain that is right either. In any case, I removed the "copy to wikimedia commons" template since the image is not a candidate for copying to commons. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this, Miro Samek is the president of the company that develops that software. If he's the uploader (Mirosamek (talk · contribs)), he might easily have the right to do so. Note also this appears to be a similar image, hosted on the company's website. I'd say that the ideal course of action would be to ask him to follow the WP:CONSENT procedure, but even if he doesn't, I'd say that this is a reasonably credible assertion that it is his own work. (Does anyone have an opinion on whether images of copyrighted software would for some reason cause us not to accept a credible declaration of authorship?) TheFeds 07:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Files from Scholarpedia

Is is okay to upload to Commons files from Scholarpedia, such as this one, which state that they can "be copied, distributed and/or modified under the terms of the Free Documentation License." --Epipelagic (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It is legal, as the GFDL is one of the compatible free licences. However, it's troublesome, because the GFDL requires that the text of the licence be reproduced when the work is reproduced (e.g. when anyone prints the image, they also have to print the text of the GFDL). If you can convince the copyright holder to offer it under a better licence (CC-BY-SA 3.0 would be the obvious choice), or find an alternative image, that would be preferable. TheFeds 08:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And strictly speaking, this page is for English Wikipedia, not Commons questions, but in this case, the same answer applies to both. TheFeds 08:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ayurveda Official Photo - May 2010 (Heather Ainsworth)

Help! I got a ticket for Ayurveda's Official photo for use on User: Whysosirius/Ayurveda (band). I assume that gives me a green light to use the photo and I assume it has been successfully uploaded. Where do I find this photo now?...And how can I get it onto my page? I don't see where I have a "photo library" of any kind. Please help; I've been working forever and a day to get this pic up. Molte grazie.Whysosirius (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The photo is located at File:Ayurveda Official Photo - May 2010 (Heather Ainsworth).jpg. To insert it into an article, simply place [[File:Ayurveda Official Photo - May 2010 (Heather Ainsworth).jpg]] into the article. More information on how to use images may be found at Wikipedia:Images#Using images. Netalarm^talk 15:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Death anniversaries

Am I right in thinking that in US law the term of copyright ends on December 31st of the relevant "death anniversary" year? So that from January 2011, works whose authors died in 1940 will be out of copyright. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the fact that copyright terms end at the end of the year: that much is true. However, I'm not aware of any 80-year copyright terms in the United States; are you sure you weren't thinking of the 70-years after the death of the author rule, which doesn't apply for pre-1978 works? In any event, there are complicated provisions that can lead to a couple possible scenarios. Consult this flowchart and this table for precise explanations. TheFeds 16:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, just my maths! Changed to 1940. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Eab_article_11July1936.JPG

I'm trying to cleanup some files which appear in both en.WP and commons. While doing so, if I see copyright issues, I want to run them by the experts here, or otherwise handle them appropriately.

I'm looking at: File:Eab_article_11July1936.JPG

If I read this correctly, the copyright status of a scan of a newspaper article is the same as the status of the newspaper article itself.

If I read this correctly, if it were published before 1923, it would be PD, but if after, then it is still under copyright (for a US newspaper).

One issue is that the newspaper isn't identified. I think it is the NYT, but it doesn't say, so I'm not sure what implications, if any, that has.

The scan didn't include the date, although the title implies that it was in 1936.

I'm thinking that it isn't likely it is PD, so planning to post it to WP:PUF unless someone points out that I'm missing something.--SPhilbrickT 17:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's extremely unlikely (virtually impossible) that the uploader is the source and copyright holder. That alone throws it into question. We can pin the date of this article; See this source. Roosevelt dedicated the bridge on July 10, 1936. The article was printed the same day ("In his address today..."). Please note that the image needs to be brought to task both here and at Commons, as it exists there as well. It is very likely this article is still under copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a possibility the copyright wasn't renewed (see this and this for the U.S. Copyright Office). This has more details and links to the documentation.

Incidentally, I checked the copyright records for the NYT (on Google books), and the July 1936 editions were apparently copyrighted properly for the first 28-year term. But the renewal records on Project Gutenberg indicate that for some reason, the NYT appears to only have renewed its copyrights for March 1936, and not the other months (v. 85, no. 28526–28556, dated 1Mar36–31Mar36). That would put the unrenewed ones permanently in the public domain due to expiration c. 1964. (And note, that's renewal for March 1936 out of the entire scope of that 29184-page document that allegedly contains all renewals taking place from 1950 to 1977. That has significant implications for all NYT content from c. 1949 and before—this is a topic worth investigating further.)

Unfortunately for you, I also checked the NYT archives—and it's not there. It may not be a Times article at all. You'll need to know the source to identify whether the periodical is copyrighted. (And it's possible for authors to have a separate copyright registration for individual articles, so make sure to search the title too.) TheFeds 21:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the Edward Abraham Byrne article where it's linked, it's from The New York Sun (which may be The Sun (New York)?). Oh, and not that it matters for this image but as I recall after a certain point the NYT renwed their copyright as a single index annually - it's been a while since I went looking though, but it's a safe bet that anything published since 1923 in the NYT is still copyrighted without some serious searching. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the NYT, I saw some entries for the New York Times Index, but presumed they referred to this, the index that the NYT publishes containing a list of articles in the preceding volume—which seems to be a separate work and which doesn't contain the articles themselves. Is there a provision somewhere in the U.S. Code or copyright regulations that allows periodicals to incorporate the contents of an index by reference into their copyright filings? I know that currently, you can file periodicals' copyrights in monthly blocks, but that doesn't seem to have been what they did in the past. TheFeds 02:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

So, I think I understand what I was missing with that Gutenberg document: it applies to "[b]ooks, pamphlets, serials, and contributions to periodicals", but not to entire periodicals. Accordingly, I've found a series of GIF-format scans of the periodicals section that demonstrate appropriate day-by-day renewals c. 1964 for the NYT issues published in 1936 (here, from this list). Actually, there are entire pages devoted to the NYT in the scanned renewal list. That probably means their copyrights are in the dreaded 95-year group after all. (Still...it might be worth it to dig for omissions.)

But I also had a look for copyright registrations for The Sun and several variants on that. I found a registration that apparently includes the July 1936 issues. However, I can't find a timely renewal of this article in the same Gutenberg document (searching by title, there are no matches; there are a couple dozen unrelated articles listed as being in "The Sun, New York"). Furthermore, and most convincingly, in the scans of the periodical renewals for 1963 and 1964, I can't find any renewals of entire issues for "New York Sun", "Sun" or "New York World-Telegram and Sun" (with or without a preceding "The", in case of alphabetization error).

Provided you can identify it as having come from the Sun—don't you wish the Sun published an index like the NYT?—this article is apparently in the public domain. Copyright expired due to non-renewal by the end of 1964. (If anyone wants to check my reasoning and research, please go ahead; I could certainly be missing something.) TheFeds 07:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Youtube image capture

I am looking for an image of Kathy Dunderdale and found this Youtube video which features an image of the Premier at :47 I would like to capture and upload, for that article. Is this an acceptable use? What information would I need to add this screenshot as the non-free use rationale to the infobox? NorthernThunder (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As she is still alive, you cannot use an image from a copyrighted work for her picture. We only allow for free images of living persons to be used. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you suggest a legitimate alternative? NorthernThunder (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You are going to have to find or take a free picture of her that can be uploaded as public domain or the appropriate Creative Commons license. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that Canadian copyright law conflicts with CC licences. I wouldn't even know how to ask for a compatible picture, from any Canadian politician, whose image is protected under this law. NorthernThunder (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It is completely possible that there exists no freely licensed image in the world of a given subject. But, as long as the subject is alive and not a recluse, an unfree image can't be used here, because in theory, it is replaceable - there is nothing stopping you (except, perhaps, many, many practical issues) from personally photographing the subject, and personally releasing that photo under a free license. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of creating a free encyclopedia, is that not every biographical article can have an image of its subject. -Seidenstud (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Image with a copyright statement in its filename

The article NHS primary care trust contains a picture of which the filename is File:JerichoHealthCentre20050326 CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg. Is this permissible? --rossb (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Certainly. When a person releases an image under a free license, they are not releasing copyrights, but rights of reproduction specific to the license under which they are releasing it. So, unless they release an image into the public domain, they certainly can retain copyrights. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Armand Vaillancourt by Joe Sioufi www.JoeSioufi.gif and others

The uploader User:StarlightPhotography, who states that he is the creater of the images, has uploaded a number of images with copyright watermarks AND GNU / CC licencing. How does the watermark copyright impact licencing? Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Why would we even want these images? This seems like self promotion to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

They do seem like self-promotion. But funny enough, CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL 1.2 are irrevocable. If he was authorized to upload those on behalf of the copyright holder, it's a done deal—anyone who got the image from the Wikipedia page can use it under licence, forever. (He may have an equitable remedy if he can show that the upload was by mistake...but realistically, he filled out a rather explicit form before uploading, so I seriously doubt it. Besides, he'd have to sue to make that argument.) He's essentially saying that all rights are reserved, except for those granted under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL 1.2 or later.

As for why we'd want them, who knows, maybe someone will have use for a cropped image of a raised fist.... TheFeds 22:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A few things.

• Watermarks, text, copyright info - whatever it may be - does not have an impact on the license itself.
• The author appears to be the actual uploader. So there is not really an issue of if they did it with permission.
• "irrevocable" is not entirely true, it is just a blanket statement that pertains to the overall license. The license can be terminated if the usage terms are not followed by an end user ("You" in the license), that right is explicit in the license itself. In plain English that means if someone takes a CCL image and uses it, but does not follow the terms of use, than that *users* license is terminated. The "You" could be Wikipedia itself, or it could be anyone who obtained the image from Wikipedia.
• Outside of the image listed above the other images seem to just have a copyright tag, which, again, has zero bearing on the license itself. However such a notice, if given, should be kept. (i.e "...keep intact all copyright notices for the Work"). Also the question that always comes up in regards to text on images is Wikipedia, but the core is the source license, not Wikipedia policy. In other words the CCL is explicit in that the "Work" is being licensed by the "Original Author" to "You" under the terms set forth in the license. If Wikipedia accepts the license then they are bound by the terms of it "unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent." and/or "This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You." So if Wikipedia does not follow the terms than Wikipedia can have it's license to use the image "terminated". Also, while the right to "remix" is given any such "remix" would/should be thought of as a "Adaptation" and it needs to me marked as such. So File:Armand Vaillancourt crop.png could be looked at as not meeting the license terms and the license could be terminated if the author wanted to do so.

Wikipedia has the right to simply say "no thanks" to any image, even if the license is acceptable. As far a the license goes, all of these images are licensed via an acceptable license for Wikipedia. Now the issue simply becomes: Does Wikipedia want to say "no thanks"? Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point regarding the retention of copyright notices (per CC-BY-SA); I'd always assumed that it meant you must reproduce the copyright notice in any reasonable manner (like the credit notice, if any), because a derivative work could take almost any form, including ones where it is impossible to retain the original notice (e.g. a CC-BY-SA movie with a copyright notice on the title card, which I adapt by mixing the soundtrack; how can I retain the original notice in that medium?). I can see how that's ambiguous, though: it could be interpreted to limit the kinds of derivatives permitted, contingent on the original notice being reproduced in the derivative.

And yes, I should have been clearer about irrevocability: you can't revoke the licence as a whole, but each instance of the licence is self-terminating when it is broken by the licensee. GFDL has a clause that allows you to undo violations; CC-BY-SA doesn't, so there's some question as to what it means to terminate—is termination also perpetual for each licensee? How is that supposed to work for Wikipedia, a collaborative, long-term project with little ability (at present) to track licence terminations. And who has the ability and authority to break the licence on behalf of Wikipedia? Hypothetically, could a malicious user create intentional violations in order to automatically terminate licences on useful files? TheFeds 20:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

TheFeds asked "could a malicious user create intentional violations in order to automatically terminate licences on useful files?" Well, yes they could. But I tend to find a slightly larger issue. For example there was recent image that was upped here that was a derivative work. The uploader did the correct things - they used the same license, the cited the origianl, they said it was a derivative. The problem was the original contained other copyrighted material and the "new" version was cropped to show *only* that copyright material. The first point made by the uploader was that the CCL allowed for "remix" so how was the derivative a copyvio? In that case there was no "malicious user" involved, just someone who read/s the general summary of such licenses. (i.e - cc-by-sa "deed")

I have come across numerous articles, with images, out on the web simply sourced to "Wikipedia" and nothing else. Again - maybe not done by a "malicious user", but if one simply takes the text of an article and re-posts it and grabs the "associated" image/s as well they may never see the information found on the image page. The Wikipedia specific issue comes in various shapes and sizes - more so now that many "free enough for Wikipedia" files are being moved over to Wikimedia Commons and deleted from here. I have seen this happen: A user finds an image on the internet. They upload it and claim "self" via a CCL. The image has a credit in it - maybe a website, maybe a photographer. Another editor comes along and makes an "adaption" by removing the text but never says that the image is now an "adaption". Somewhere down the line the image is "moved to Commons" and the "source" is deleted here. At this point there is no indication the work is an "adaption", only that the file was uploaded at Wikipedia by "user:Istolethisimage". Unless someone actually spots the image and either knows it is there, or is a copyvio, there in no way to really verify if the uploader was, indeed, the true copyright holder. (And I am not saying that all uploaders are creating copyvios, only that the "original source" can be lost translation)

The other part of the Wikipedia issue is that CCL's are generic. They are worded to be used across any and all media - the "reasonable to the medium or means" is meant to reflect that, but too many take it solely to mean "a still image used at Wikipedia." Editors should understand the concept of "attribution" can be many things and found in various locations. A song licensed under a CCL might carry attribution requirements that the author and performer (and the musicians who played on it) have to be "attributed" if used in a film or on a CD, along with a copyright notice such as "copyright 2010 DIY records". But there may also be another attribution requirement that states if played on the radio only the performer has to be mentioned. Those are two very different "medium or means" of public display for the same media. You raised the issue of a film and a soundtrack - the exact same concept applies. There may be a large list of credits (Attribution) that is required to appear on the film itself. One can't simply cut off the head and tail credits and say "We consider attribution requirements to be satisfied because it is a 'reasonable manner' to show the poster outside of the theater" Or vice versa - again, "insert your use here" Common sense should dictate the obvious. If you remixed a soundtrack and than release it the license states "a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors." If the original mixer got a full card credit in the head credits for 15 seconds than the same type of credit must be provided to the remix.

Still images are not different in that sense. I can agree that File:Armand Vaillancourt by Joe Sioufi www.JoeSioufi.gif is a bit over the top, but, as far as the license itself goes, there is nothing "not allowable" about it. But, as I said, File:Armand Vaillancourt crop.png seems to break the actual License. And anyone who takes the croppped image and uses it would not have knowledge of the original, unmodified version. "Joe Sioufi" is listed as the source but the original text said "Armand Vaillancourt photographed by Joe Sioufi http://www.JoeSioufi.com" and the copyright notice that is one the original is not left intact. Nor is there any clear indication it is a (severely) cropped version of another image. Yes there is a link to the "source" here, but what if [:File:Armand Vaillancourt by Joe Sioufi www.JoeSioufi.gif]] is deleted?

What it comes back too is, first, what the actual copyright holder is saying. They may not list any sort of attribution or copyright notice, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't be listed if known. On the other hand they may be very explicit. The argument/s that is/are most used seems to split between "Wikipedia does not allow people to require attribution" (Ignoring the fact "cc by" is allowed) and "Wikipedia ignores any specific attribution requirements feeling as long as the uploaders name appears on the image page it satisfies the 'reasonable to the medium or means' portion." Both of those seem to be rooted in outdated guidelines/policy when it was fairly common for admins to delete images that claimed "copyright" or contained "conditions". There was (Maybe still is) an interesting discussion at Wikimedia Commons where someone uploaded an image using a CCL and paraphrased some of the terms. The files was sent to a deletion discussion, the argument being files with such restrictions are not accepted. Kind of silly in my eyes, not the license but the nom. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

File:WWTV5.jpg

This is obviously a copyrighted logo NOT created by the uploader. Not sure how to fix this for FAIR use. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I retagged as non-free logo, and marked it as missing rationale. I notified the uploader. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I have added the standard logo rationale. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

belated thank yous! Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Denmark Japan Locator.png

I have changed the map. I want to ask if it still will be deleted? The map is used in many bilateral relations pages. Ahmetyal 13:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that the map you made is based on an earlier map, perhaps File:BlankMap-World.png. Please state which maps you have based yours on. This will help researchers know what date the country borders are from, or what level of detail is included. Others could use this to make an SVG version. Even if the original is public domain, you should not claim credit for the whole of the work you made. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Licencing the image

Hi,

I want to upload image files to use it in an article. The images can be put under Public Domain.. Whenever I select the apt licence.. I get the following message..

"Dear uploader: This media file, which you just uploaded, has been listed for speedy deletion because you indicated that only Wikipedia has permission to use this file. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, since explicit permission to use it was given, this is in fact not the case. [1] [2] Please do not upload any more files with this restriction on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it. See our non-free content guidelines for more information. If you created this media file and want it to be kept on Wikipedia, remove this message and replace this with {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. If you did not create this media file but want it to be used on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may replace this message with one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license."

I don't have clue where to put the tag and what to replace.. Can anyone please guide me? It is urgent.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanshi1323 (talk • contribs) 09:19, December 21, 2010

Thank you

Are you certain that you actually took the image and are the copyright holder? My google image search says the image came from facebook. Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Image uploading

hello,

I want to upload images from this site. I sent an e-mail to this e-mail address. The webmaster or author gave me the permission to use the file. What should I do now, to get this under a free licence? Please answer me. I am a newbie about image uploading and the licensing stuff. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the process set out at WP:IOWN to provide evidence of the permission to OTRS. Once the permission has been reviewed and confirmed to be broad enough for Wikipedia (NB, restrictions for use just on Wikipedia are not sufficient), you can upload the images and they will be tagged with an appropriate OTRS template. – ukexpat (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• It also depends on what you asked of them and what they responded. Asking for permission to use on Wikipedia, and getting it, is not useful to us. They must have released the images under a free license. If you didn't ask for that, and didn't get it, you can read WP:COPYREQ for instructions on how to do so, and what to do with the result. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Also to add onto what Ukexpat said the website clearly states in a disclaimer that "This is a fan site and is not affiliated with Nintendo." As such the image you are asking about my not be owned by the website so their permission would be useless. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • So I can forget to upload this images? -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Probably. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • You can forget about uploading it or you can attempt to find the proper copyright owner for the image and get them to agree to the proper GNU or CC licenceing and get that agreement confirmed by the OTRS team. How badly do you want to use the image?Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• It depends on what the image is. If it is from the game than you need permission from Nintendo. If it is user created, but still from a game, than {{derivative}} would apply - meaning the permission would only apply to the image, not to the content - so the permission would still have to come from Nintendo. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • • I really, really need this maps. In the future I am going to improve this article, possibly to FL level. So I need this images badly. And thank you for your help; I never knew that it would move so fast (alot of edit conflicts).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
        • If you're intending on creating a list of maps for the game, and uploading images to depict each map, you'll end up violating WP:NFLISTS. Just in general; it's not common that we "really, really need" non-free content. I'd recommend a thorough reading of WP:NFC before continuing, and don't read it with a pre-biased eye that gleans out only the elements that seem to support your particular desired usage. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Thank you for all these guidelines above. However, I sent a message to Nintendo, by asking how to copy this images from the NDS to my computer and if this is allowed, and waiting for the answer. OK now my question: If Nintendo will agree about the use of this images from a fansite, which is not affiliated with any content with Nintendo, or per above, may I use this images or not? I might overlooked something, which answering my question, but since my english is not very well, I beg you to answer it not in an official's english but in a easier english. Thank you very much.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
            • What, exactly, are you intending to upload? Can you provide a link? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
              • The whole maps here.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
                • Those would almost certainly have to be uploaded under terms of fair use here and have to abide by WP:NFCC. Having ONE example map might (might) be acceptable, but having all of them would never be. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
                  • And what if I ask nintendo to use "screenshot-programs" to take screenshots from emulators (skeptical)? Would it be possible to do so?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Emulators? Not sure what you're getting at, but if the game is originally authored by Nintendo, they hold rights to the maps. It is unlikely Nintendo would ever release rights to the maps under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Photographs of recent artwork - OK for "fair use"?

For an article about the neon sculptor Stephen Antonakos, I'd like to use a photo of a sculpture located in a museum. The photo itself is a derivative work that can be licensed using a Creative Commons license (attribution-share alike), but Antonakos himself hasn't licensed the use of his sculpture in the image. Is this a Wikipedia-acceptable application for fair use? Thanks, Easchiff (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Where is the sculpture located? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That's quick - thanks. The photo was taken during an exhibit in San Diego about a year ago (Museum of Contemporary Art in San Diego). Easchiff (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry the next response was slower! Anyway, in the United States, there is no freedom of panorama for works of three dimensional art. Therefore, whoever holds copyrights to the sculpture, also holds rights to derivative works, including photographic works taken by third parties. Since his work appears in public in countries where there is freedom of panorama for such works, uploading a non-free image of one of his works for purposes of general depiction of his work would not be acceptable, as free alternatives can be obtained. If the work in question is the subject of sourced commentary, a non-free image (i.e. photograph) of a given work might be acceptable. Probably sounds like you stepped in a spot of quick sand, huh? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks. In the article, there will be an explicit discussion of this sculpture. It's important to the article. To most art historians, Antonakos' most distinguished contributions were his pioneering neon works in the 1960s similar to this particular sculpture. I've scrounged around looking for photos of relevant sculptures taken at European installations - but no luck. Easchiff (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
        • That's the wrong direction to take. I think you need to look at his works from the 60s, and see where they are installed (images existing or no). If any are installed in countries with freedom of panorama, then your case for inclusion here of a non-free image wouldn't hold. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks for your thoughts. I may have to try to get a free-licensed image from Antonakos directly; he's got usable images on his website, but rights are reserved. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Shadowstats.com images

Can the Shadowstats.com charts be uploaded under a free license? Their Chart's republish page states "ShadowStats.com gives you permission to re-publish any charts on our website except for subscription-only material" and that it requires hotlinking with "Courtesy of ShadowStats.com" link.Smallman12q (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Short answer, no. On that same republic page it notes "All Charts must be published without modification in any way". On Wikipedia, images not used under fair use and non-free content policy must permit derivative works. So, the charts might be 'free' but they're not free enough. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

copyright for suzanne de passe image

i have uploaded an image of Suzanne de Passe. File:Suzannedepasse-photo.jpg This photo is a press-release, headshot image. Any help as to what copyright license should be included would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knssilm (talk • contribs) 06:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Press release images are usually copyright as this one is, (see the copyright notice at the bottom right of the source page), so there is no licence we can suggest you add to it. Besides that we don't accept unfree images of living people. Perhaps you can get the copyright holder give their permission to use the image as freely licenced (wikipedia use only is not sufficent), have them follow the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION, otherwise we cannot use it. Sorry ww2censor (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I am requesting permission from the copyright holder right now and will add the correlating tags to the image description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knssilm (talk • contribs) 06:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is also the case of {{Non-free promotional}} Verapar (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Photos of posters (UK)

I hope these are OK, because they're helpful to the articles, but I can't be sure: File:Monken Hadley Common noticeboard.JPG and File:Coppett's Wood noticeboard.JPG. (I know no more than is on the image description page). ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Since you are reproducing a poster or sign, you don't actually own all the rights in your reproduction of it, so you are not entitled to release it to public domain. Copyright may be owned by Friends of Hadley Common for the first one. Although they may be useful, they are not actually "free" images. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Ogmackie.jpg

File source problem with File:Ogmackie.jpg. I am not quite sure what you are asking here. The picture is over 100 years and was scanned from a photo in my personal collection. What is the exact issue? RichardLowther (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• You should say where the picture came from: File:Ogmackie.jpg, and the same for commons:File:Osbert Mackie.jpg This is so that you can prove the image is in fact public domain. It is best if you say who took the picture, where and when it was published. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Uploading

how to upload a picture??????????????????????????????????????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittywrinklex3 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to be an autoconfirmed user; the criteria is that you are registered for four days and have made at least 10 edits. Right now you don't qualify but you can make a request at Wikipedia:Files for upload. ww2censor (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Hazard Perry Congressional Gold Medal

Sup WP:MCQ,

I am trying to upload an image of the Congressional Gold Medal issued to Oliver Hazard Perry. These medals are issued periodically from US Congress to certain individuals who have distinguished themselves in one way or another. I have two Options and would like your I/P. Here is the first:Image 1. Non-Gov website of a US Mint Issued reproduction. Can I upload it as PD with {{money-US}}? Here is the second: Image 2. Here the website claims a license but since it is a reproduction of a US Congress issued Medal, can {{PD-USGov-Congress}} apply here or on both? TY for your time. QuAzGaA 13:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding image 1, it's a medallion, not a unit of currency, so avoid {{money-US}}. Typical practice is to treat the coins as 3-D artwork, so the photo may embody the photographer's copyright, which is probably still in force—therefore avoid image 1. For completeness, there's also the matter of the diemaker's copyright (it involves craftsmanship that goes beyond reproducing the original sketch). Assuming that the restrike was using the 19th-century dies (and not new ones prepared recently), we can assume his copyright has expired (because it was created prior to 1923). And of course, the original designer's copyright is similarly expired (pre-1923).

Regarding image 2, we don't know if it's a reproduction (i.e. using the medallion as a model), or the original sketch used to create the medallion. This could be a work for hire, or could be the work of a government employee, so there might be a case for {{PD-USGov-Congress}} or the ordinary {{PD-USGov}}. But fortunately we don't need to care: image 2 was published in the United States prior to 1923 (1919, in fact), so it falls under {{PD-US}}. That's the most important fact here, and what normally allows you to take advantage of the policy that faithful 2-D reproductions are not eligible for an additional copyright.

However, the site hosting it claims: "It is true that the original drawings that many items in this collection are based on have long passed into the public domain. However, by the time we have scanned, cropped, cut out backgrounds, fixed broken lines, simplified, sharpened, and otherwise cleaned up the original drawing, the result is a new artwork derived from the earlier drawing. The derivative work is protected by copyright even though the original is in the public domain." At issue is whether that restoration process results in a new copyright, and the factual question of whether that particular image has been so altered. See Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag for a more thorough explanation.

Here, at page 260 ("Erie, Lake, Battle on"), is an image of the medallion in the book, scanned by Google from a University of Michigan original. If you are satisfied that there's no original artistic input in the USF scan, you can upload the high-resolution TIFF file to Wikimedia Commons (don't bother uploading at Wikipedia—the image can be still be used in articles if uploaded to Commons), tagging as {{PD-scan|PD-US}} per Commons:Template:PD-scan. If you're going to place it in the article, also enlist some assistance converting it to SVG (Commons:Help:SVG).

However, maybe there's an even better way to achieve the desired outcome: we could ask USF to upload their archive to Commons (technical assistance with that can be provided). If they can live with this, then that's a win for everyone. (If that appeals to anyone, interested Wikipedians should discuss logistics before proceeding.) TheFeds 08:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission for File:Alton S Tobey Sailboats.jpg

Somebody takes issue with this jpg file. I took the photo myself, I also relinquish all rights to it, and I think it would constitute fair use for the Alton Tobey article anyway. The file was also never published previously to being uploaded to Wikipedia in 2006. What should I do to prevent deletion of this image, which is the only visual image anyone has provided for this article about a visual artist? MdArtLover (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the problem. This is a photo of a piece of a copyrighted 2D artwork and any photo taken of a copyright artwork is a derivative work for which you need permission from the copyright owner, i.e., usually the artist. Even though you took a photo of it and you may want to release that photo into the public domain, the image is not entirely yours to do with as you wish due to the artwork being copyright. Such images need permission for both uses; the artwork and the photo. You indicate that you know the artist and they are willing to release the image into the public domain, so please have them follow the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION but make sure they understand such a realise means that anyone can use the image for anything including commercial usage. While you also mention "fair-use", which applies to images that are copyright, if you want to release your photo into the public domain you can do that but the artwork still needs to comply with all 10 fair-use criteria with a completed fair-use rationale if you don't get a freely licenced permission from the copyright holder. ww2censor (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I own the painting. I also own the rights to the image of the painting. I took the photo and I created the jpg file myself. And I release this photo, this jpg file, for the free, unlimited use of any and all in this universe and any other conceivable universe, whether for commercial or for non-commercial purposes. I swear, I own this painting. I took the photo of the painting. And I relinquish all rights to the use of this photo image or jpg file or whatever you want to call it of this painting. I do not see what can be the problem here. MdArtLover (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

While you may physically own the painting, the artist owns the copyright unless you can show that the artist assigned that copyright to you and you are now the copyright holder. Possession and ownership of artwork does not confer any copyright to that artwork. I thought I had explained everything quite simply and clearly above but you are still making the same claims without any proof. What don't you understand? ww2censor (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. How could I prove this to you? MdArtLover (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft images with manufacturer's logo

File:Aircraft's look.jpg and File:LSA plane.jpg

Would WP:WATERMARK apply to these images? The "Flight Design" on the logo refers to the plane's manufacturer. It could be cropped out of the second one. January ^(talk) 17:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

While both images have watermarks, so WP:WATERMARK does apply, however and more importantly, they have no source so we cannot actually check if the copyright status is correct as applied by the uploader. The Flight Design website clearly shows a copyright notice but I was unable to find the images and we would really need to get permission sent to the OTRS department for such images in order to confirm the copyright tag. I have tagged them for deletion as having no source. ww2censor (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Jusst a note the uploader works for the company Flight Design and has been creating articles on the company products with text and image copied directly from the companies webpages. I understand they may be brought up at WP:COIN shortly refer Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. MilborneOne (talk)

File:Australia-geo-stub picture 35px.png

Doing some cleanup of old images and ran across this file. It is a derivative work of File:Australia-climate-map MJC01.png, which is GFDL/CC A/SA. However, the uploader of this file, now long gone, licensed it as PD. How should I fix this and attribute the derivative work? Kelly ^hi! 02:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of toys

What's the latest consensus on toys? I ran across File:Armada Jetfire RM.jpg and File:Jetfire-classic.jpg - should they be tagged as {{non-free character}} or {{non-free 3D art}}? Kelly ^hi! 05:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Also File:Jet Convoy.jpg and File:Magna Jet Convoy.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 05:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Help

I don't know how to find the liscense for File:Houthis.jpg. Could you help me find it? Thanks. American Idiot1 (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We can try to give you advice, but you've got to tell us where the image comes from—sometimes that will allow us to determine the copyright status. Normally, when you upload a file, you have to already know what the licence is, or have to provide a valid fair use rationale.

The fair use rationale you've attached is incomplete, and in any case, the image doesn't appear to meet all 10 of the non-free content criteria. (Mainly #1: why couldn't it be replaced by a free equivalent? Is there something special about the event pictured?) TheFeds 18:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright and Originality

Can someone back me up or correct me re. the copyright question I raise here (with some Reliable Sources)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Copyright#Originality_-_Can_I_get_some_more_opinions.3F The claim is indeed backed up by the source, but I'm willing to bet that authoritative sources contradict it. --Elvey (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm if I can upload this image

Please let me know if I can use the image of wood stem cell in the link below:

http://www.google.co.kr/imglanding?imgurl=http://www.pkwrite.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/wood-stem-cell-copy.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pkwrite.com/blog/category/biophilia/&h=450&w=557&sz=276&tbnid=G8TW35j92a2NSM:&tbnh=107&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dplant%2Bstem%2Bcells&zoom=1&q=plant+stem+cells&hl=ko&usg=__0olihaz328q2qA80FsqqwpX2OHY%3D&sa=X&ei=nyQYTbuzKIKosQP924i9Ag&ved=0CFoQ9QEwAw

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 김찬양 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

HLKA Studios Photo Fair Use For Seoul City Sue historical context?

I propose to add a photo (c. 1950) of the former HLKA studios and transmitter in Seoul, ROK, to illustrate the notability of [Seoul City Sue] during the Korean War. My proposed fair use rationale and off-wiki links to the photo can be found at User:Cmholm/Sandbox. Will it pass muster for fair use?

Originally a International News Photos (INP) Soundphoto. Per the Library of Congress, INP photographs published with proper copyright notices between 1923-1963 may be protected if properly renewed. The INP photo archive became part of the UPI collection, later brought by CORBIS. A search of both the LOC Prints & Photographs Online Catalog and CORBIS Images failed to turn up the image, thus the current copyright status is unknown.

help

File:Rattinasami_Nadar.jpg is a man who died on 1911 according to this reference http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2054164.pdf. I was trying to establish the source of the picture from the uploader and our coversation is here. i would like to know what would be the appropriate copyright tag. --CarTick (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)