Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/August

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

I've been working on an article on the Shifang protest in southwest China, and wanted to inquire about the use of images. I cannot find anything on Wikimedia commons, the Chinese Wikipedia, or other sites that sometimes carry free use news images. However, cell phone photographs, video, and other media materials of the protests were widely circulated on Chinese social networking sites like Weibo (roughly the equivalent of twitter). What kind of copyright restrictions govern use of those kinds of images? Homunculus (duihua) 14:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, I'm wondering if I could use any of these photos, some of which appear to have originally been circulated through Weibo, and then posted to Flickr (and if so, under what kind of license?):

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5] (This one might be a Reuters handout, so probably no)
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

Homunculus (duihua) 15:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

For Flickr, images can be used at Commons if the are licensed CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, as described at Commons:Flickr files.

For other Flickr images or any other image where there is no explicit declaration of a free license (which is what is the usual scenario), any images used would have to meet en.wiki's non-free content policy. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

One exception to Masem's statement — if you go to the Flickr Commons, you'll find many images that are marked as "No known copyright restrictions". They're definitely okay to use without jumping through the non-free content hoops. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm being advised that if I take a photograph of a product, that the manufacturer of that product has a claim on copyright?

Surely I am free to photograph what I like - and use those pictures as I wish. If I take a picture of a can of Coke, then that is my picture, Coca-Cola have no claim over it?

Certainly, if I take a photograph of a person, the photograph is my copyright, but I would need a model release to use that picture.

As far as I know, there is no equivalent to a model release pertaining to a product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.177.105 (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC) It doesn't really matter, I can't be bothered to argue with the person who has marked it for deletion, anyway. Let them delete it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.236.97 (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Its a concept called derivative work. Your photo of the manufacture's product is a derivative work of any copyrighted elements in that product, including the label or artwork. While you can claim the copyright on the photo, you cannot claim the copyright of the elements within it; it is comparable to taking a photo of a work of art, as compared to taking a photograph of a person who cannot be copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Remember that labels and other elements can be examples of de minimis if they're small enough and sufficiently trivial. Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Two images used in en/WP from the Commons were tagged by an admin, disputed, and then deleted by the same admin. See Alan Arkin and Garr images. Both images were PD images, described and tagged properly. However, the admin marked and later deleted them as "no permission," later adding other random rationales, ie. "about possible copyright/release statements that may have been available . . ." and questioning whether they were posed studio photos. Since they were both lead images to en/WP bios, can they be uploaded to en/WP? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you able to assert fair use, meeting the criteria of WP:NFC? If so, certainly they can be uploaded to en/WP. Otherwise, if you have credible information to suggest the deletion is wrong, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests#Appeal. Beyond that, all the same issues raised at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/July#Adding PD images to EN WP vs. commons continue to apply. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, given they are pictures of living persons, there's no NFC allowance at all here (per NFCC#1). And for us to consider images free, we (both here and commons) need assured proof that the images are in the public domain; not having seen the original shots, but can imagine based on the comments that they were likely professional-looking, poses shots as opposed to most "candid" shots we get for living people, there's enough cause to consider them non-PD, and as no evidence was shown to counter that , deletion made sense. --MASEM (t) 13:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

They appear to have been publicity images, which multiple reliable sources say were PD-US due to failure to comply with copyright formalities. Aside from that issue, the deletions themselves were out of process; Denniss was rather blatantly involved. I've requested undeletion and reopening of the DRs because of Denniss' ineligibility to delete. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Update - User:Fastily has overturned Denniss's deletions and re deleted the pictures, edit summary of (Deleted: Unclear copyright status. If anyone knows the copyright status of this file and has tangible proof to support that fact, we can restore this photo.) - thats just the thing - the uploader doesn't actually know the copyright status - and is just asserting that because they can't find anything then the image is PD, that isn't the way Commons is supposed to work - we err on the side of caution to protect the project. The uploader of these pictures User:Wikiwatcher1 has a current copyright investigation open at this time, see his talkpage for the slurry of deleted file uploads .Youreallycan 05:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Look at User:Wikiwatcher1's commons talkpage and the huge amount of deleted uploads he has there - Youreallycan 05:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I would like information about use of the following Wikipedia Commons photo for the cover of an English-language economics text book. File: Boulton,_Watt_and_Murdoch.jpg The picture would take up about one-third of a page. The press run is 700 copies. Thank you. Leonard Dudley, Université de Montréal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudleylm (talk • contribs) 01:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

All Wikimedia Commons are freely licenced and while we can't give you any intellectual property legal advise, the Creative Commons licence clearly tells you that attribution must be made if you use the image. You are best off to read commons:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia for more details. ww2censor (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The image is only 600kb; you might find it's not high enough resolution for a printed book cover. You could contact the uploader at User talk:Oosoom and ask if they have a higher-resolution version. Rd232 ^talk 16:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In some jurisdictions, one cannot claim copyright over illegally-produced images because those jurisdictions' laws prohibit benefiting from illegal activity. What is this sort of prohibition called? I thought it was unclean hands, but that's something different. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at a permission statement for the image at File:Mies-Barcelona-Chair-and-Ottoman.jpg. I'm comfortable that the permission is covering the photograph, but I'd like some feedback on the possibility of copyright on the underlying design.

Based upon a very cursory review of copyright sites, I see that utilitarian functions cannot be subject to copyright but design can be. However, I think the purpose of this it to ensure that another manufacturer does not make a knock-off. In other words, one cannot make a physical copy, but this doesn't mean you cannot make a photograph. Is this correct, or do I need to research the copyright status of the underlying design?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The design would be covered by patent, or perhaps a registered design in some countries. This is different to copyright. Anyway making a 3d object from a photo is not that easy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you are saying that if someone tried to reproduce the chair, they might run into intellectual property issues, but that doesn't prevent someone from taking a picture and claiming copyright of the picture?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

When you take a photo of a copyrighted work, you are creating a derivative work. You can claim copyright on the photo, but not on the copyrighted elements within it. So if the chair is copyrighted and the term is still good, your photo of that chair technically has two separate copyrights - the chair's copyright owners, and your own. Assuming you needed to show an image of that chair on en.wiki, we would expect that you would release the rights of the photo itself into CC-BY, but with the understanding that the copyright holder of the chair still has their rights as well, and thus the image would not be free. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In this case the design is from 1929, and the designer died in 1969. Any patent is expired. Also should this be considered as a work or art or a useful object? If the latter then you could freely photograph it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I am writing a book about the history of electric cars and want to know if I am free to reprint the following photo.

File:1977 Toyota Sport-800 Gas turbine hybrid 01.jpg

If so what attribution do I need to make?

thanks in advance,

Nigel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.205.5 (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Y Yes.As the image is released in public domain, you can use it.However, do attribute it. TheStrikeΣagle 09:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I found this image which is a screenshot of part of the MediaWiki interface. The problem is with the copyright disclaimer: the software itself is GPL and Wikia sites are Creative Commons. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

In this case you should be using the {{Template:GPL screenshot}} to tag this, and not be trying to claim a fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it legal for me to share Time Magazine articles with other users considering that I (or more accurately, my parents) am subscribed to the Time Magazine? Other users might need some of the info from these articles for research or article writing purposes. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Technically it is illegal for you to share those articles as Time has the copyright on them, and controls how copies get distributed. That said, US Fair Use law allows you to make limited restricted copies for educational purposes without Time's permission, which use for researching would usually fall under. Mind you, there's no exacting numbers or advice here, and you would not be able to share those using WP resources. Time does usually put up its articles on its website so if it recent, you may be able to point people there. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Time Magazine has all of its articles on its website, but not all of them are free. Heck, not even all recent articles are free. Futurist110 (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Microsoft copyright notice specifically states that "screens from beta release products" are prohibited. For this reason, I'm concerned that files such as this one show the standard Microsoft copyright notice. While the images might be available under a general fair-use license, it seems like a blatant contradiction to use it on beta software such as Windows 8. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 06:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the article is about windows 8, and the beta or pre-release is all there is it is fair to use it under the fair use provision. Later when the real release comes out it will have to be replaced by the genuine released version equivalent. Fair use applies despite what the copyright owner claims. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the position on the inclusion of titles, authors and copyright notice on images, such as on this one:File:Roa painting Komafest.jpg

I'm fairly sure it is discouraged, but not sure whether it is "simply" discouraged, or not permitted. (The copyright owner is in the process of providing a release; I would like to give accurate advice regarding whether this image is acceptable.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I can answer my own question. Per WATERMARK, Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use...--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any examples off hand, but I've often seen instances where editors on Commons have used image editing software to remove watermarks from images that are licensed under CC-BY-SA. This is evident when watermarked images are imported from Flickr, and new clean versions get uploaded shortly after. As long as the license doesn't specify No Derivs, the watermark can be removed without violating the author's copyright. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 19:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

An image I used to depict the subject of article has been tagged for deletion and the editor has directed me here. Perhaps I used the wrong tag?

File:JohnLloydMiller.jpg fair use

This is image is commonly used in articles and on the web to depict the subject. i.e. one of his publicity photos. It falls squarely under fair use for the purpose of an article about the subject. What is the appropriate tag?

Thanks.

Kimbola (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He is a living person; therefore a free image of the person is possible to obtain. We are not allowed to use non-free media when free media is possible. Ergo the deletion is in line. --MASEM (t) 04:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is one of his publicity images. I used the wrong attribution. It should've been non-free promotional. How do I fix the attribution on the image? Or, do I just upload it again. Thanks. Kimbola (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to reupload it, you can edit the image details but it still fails WP:NFCC#1 because it is replaceable. Anyway the image is being used to identify the subject in the infobox and any image of him would serve that purpose. You can of course try to persuade him to release the image under a free licence. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, but I'm missing what it is replaceable with? The statement that 'he's a living person therefore there's a free image available" is confusing me. If not a pub photo expressly intended to depict the person, then what? Publicity photos are regularly used on wikipedia for directors, I recognize many of those photos. I'm sure he'd confirm to wikipedia it is a pub photo that is ok to use for this article, but I'm a little lost on why it is necessary. My intention here is not to be contentious, rather to understand. Thanks.

The image is replaceable because you or some one else could go and take a picture of him and release it under a free license. We require free licenses where possible, and in principle this is possible, so we do not accept the non-fully free version. If you do ask for the publicity image to be made free, it has to be licensed for use for all purposes by every one and to allow modification. Since the CC-BY-SA license is designed for this kind of use you can request that license be granted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No one wrote that "he's a living person therefore there's a free image available". I think this is your interpretation of what people wrote; available and replaceable are two different things. While a person is alive a photo could be taken and could be released under a free licence, that is what replaceable means even if that opportunity is not in the immediate future. ww2censor (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Help again, please. His office responded remarkably quickly. They sent the license in to permissions and, apparently, uploaded the image to commons with the appropriate attributes. Obviously, this is the file I should use in the article. The problem I'm running into is that they seem to have used the same file name. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JohnLloydMiller.jpg I tried the [[file:xxx] short code, but that doesn't work. If I use the filename it points to the 'old' image. How do I handle this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbola (talk • contribs) 07:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Just leave it alone. The enwiki image will eventually be deleted and then the en article will point to the commons image when that happens. BTW, it is impolite to no sign your posts so please sign then by adding four tildes, like this ~~~~ at the end. ww2censor (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it more likely, and proper, that the Commons file be deleted, then the enwiki version be transferred to Commons? They are the same image, right?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The OTRS license confirmation was placed on the enwiki image not the commons image. Will the enwiki image still be deleted (as it should be) so it points to the correct commons image? Or do I need to ask permissions to put the license confirmation on the commons image not the enwiki image? Thanks Kimbola (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Permissions tag was placed on the enwiki image because the permission email specifically referred to the enwiki image. I don't see the image on Commons.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I now see that the same file is on Commons. Anyone know why:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=JohnLloydMiller.jpg&button=&title=Special%3ASearch

suggests there is no such file?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, it looks to me like the following sequence might have happened:

1. User:Kimbola uploads image to enwiki (26 July)
2. The use of this image as fair use is questioned (appropriately) and the image is put up for deletion (3 Aug)
3. (supposition) Someone contacts the copyright holder, who agrees to license the image, and uploads to Commons ( 4 August )
4. The copyright holder sends in a permission statement, but the permissions refers to the enwiki version not the Commons versions ( 4 August )
5. I add the permissions template to the file identified in the permission statement (4 August)
6. Confusion ensues (4 August)

--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who requested permission, which they sent directly to permissions. They just sent me a copy of the email sent to permissions. They referenced the en wiki image because that it was I had up there. They followed the 'how do I contribute an image' instructions and created the commons image, which has the correct attributions. That is the image that should be used. The en wiki image should be deleted. Kimbola (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Are the images different? I'm not thrilled about deleting an image with OTRS permission (on what basis?), and leaving an image not mentioned in any permission statement. As an aside, it seems perfectly obvious that one should first send permission, then upload the image, but that isn't the desired sequence, and creates much confusion. As in this case.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I believe they were tying to be helpful. If this helps, their email to permssions does reference the commons file they uploaded, just not the url. My guess is they uploaded a photo and sent the permission in one fail swoop. The images are the same. Theirs has more accurate information about the image, proper attributes, and obviously displays the correct license. Their commons image offers a much clearer guide to the reader or end user. Kimbola (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

After receiving a confirmation email, I've added the permission to the Commons image, and deleted the enwiki image.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Artis is closely paraphrasing at least one of our articles for their English-language animal info (the example I found is Koi, I wouldn't be surprised if they've done it elsewhere, but I didn't check). It's only a few lines, and not a direct copy (at least for any of the version history that I could find), but it is pretty close paraphrasing, not sure if legally actionable. The reason I noticed it was they made a mistake in copying, and included one of the links from the article to a different topic. I don't care enough to do anything, and don't know if anyone else does either. If someone in Amsterdam does care enough, they could go check other animal descriptions, though I suspect that would be a lot of work for no reward. I have a picture of the koi text if anyone wants me to e-mail it to them. Buddy431 (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

is really simple art and it should not be able to protect by copyright. See example , it status is that its not protected by others than trademark, but this is. Why? --Einottaja (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If I understand your question, the megaupload logo is not copyrightable because it just text. Chris857 (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the question was why the CC-SA file was eligible for copyright at all, which is a good question. To my eyes, it isn't. Identical to symbols the world over for rotation or rotating things. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The other factor to consider is that if the CC-SA logo was copyrigthable but a work produced by the Creative Commons, they would have likely put that symbol in a free reuse license in the first place, as is their right and likelihood to do. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Mario Kart logo.png is an image of text ("MARIO KART") and is therefore not copyright-protected. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The color gradient within it is copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone could do that in Potatochop. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This question concerns the use of File:50francstexupery.jpg versus File:FRA-50f-anv.jpg to illustrate the article Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. There is a brief discussion at User talk:Simon Peter Hughes#Picture swap that may be of interest. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning in that discussion is correct: either the original work reproduced on both images is under copyright or it is not. Both files have correct, although incomplete, information. The Commons file description mentions author, copyright owner and date information. The en.Wikipedia file description did not mention those informations but it states clearly that the work is not free. (N.B.: The usage of the image of the work may be fine in an article commenting the work itself, which would be fair use. However, the image of the work is currently used merely to illustrate an article about another subject and that is probably not fair use.) IMO, the Commons file should not be there. Commons used to refuse those images. However, one day, a user dug out one French court case from the pre-euro years when francs were still the currency in use. That court case suggested that the application of the copyright on those currency items might have been temporarily suspended in France while they were the legal currency. The user edited the Commons help page about currencies to reflect her finding, and then some users began to interpret that as if it were a green light to upload such images to Commons, and the situation on Commons seems somewhat confused since then. I think that the court case does not make those images free for Commons. For one thing, the reasoning of the French court never made the images free in the United States. Their copyright in the United States was never affected. For another thing, if the copyright in France on those items was temporarily suspended while they were the legal currency, that logic means that the suspension ended when they ceased to be the legal currency. For more about it, you can read the discussion that I tried to start three months ago on Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/05#French money. Unfortunaly nobody else commented. So, the situation is still in limbo on Commons. If someone is motivated to make a new try at raising the problem on Commons, that might be useful. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I can definitely agree the copyright on the core image of the bill will be the same in either case. What that copyright is, I'm not sure. There's a few other images of franc bills on commons that use the statement "This document is a facsimile from an official text (law, regulation etc.) published in the Journal officiel de la République Française, the official gazette of the French Republic. As such, it is not eligible for copyright." Thing is, that's vague if is meant to apply to images (since it specifics text as written language). The court case Asclepias is also interesting to consider but given that France has gone to the Euro, it likely no longer applies. I don't know how to resolve the copyright image issue otherwise, and perhaps a better discussion on Commons might be the right place. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I hired a person to draw graphics for me, under my supervision, guidance, and advice. Together, we worked out the ideas for the work but he executed the drawings. How do I get an assignment of copyright so I am the owner and thus free to release it in any way that I see fit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebarbero (talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Under the US or some other countries' the hirer would be the owner or the copyright, unless some other arrangement was made. But to remove doubt, you can get them to sign a contract or document that assigns you the rights. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely you want to sign a contract. You can probably find one on the Internet, but even the most rudimentary contract would be better than nothing. It's not true that the hirer would be the owner of the copyright; Work for hire says that the employer is, or that if everyone agrees in writing, in certain cases only, the work can be considered work for hire.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this image eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to double check-I would like to contribute some television screenshots from the ABC television series Once Upon A Time for the page listing the characters of the series. Is it all right to use said screenshots if they are only used to describe the characters they depict? I believe it falls under the acceptable use for any television or film screenshots, but I would like to be absolutely sure I am not violating any terms or conditions.--Bookbugtink, 08:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• See WP:NFLISTS. The current lead image is adequate. I'd suggest free pictures of the actors/actresses. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at File:Hughie Green 1955.jpg, a screen capture of a British television presenter in 1955, I was moved to wonder when or if it will become public domain, since it's almost 60 years old so far. I had a brief look through WP:Public domain, WP:Non-U.S. copyrights and WP:Copyright situations by country, but couldn't identify any rule of thumb relating to television shows. I suppose it also depends on whether the copyright was renewed, or is there a cut-off? This is an area I don't know much about.

Cheers, — Hex (❝?!❞) 07:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC).

Either ineligible for copyrights or out of copyrights in the UK. As for USA, consider URAA. If "out of copyright", it might have expired in 2006, but it could be still copyrighted in the USA. If "ineligible", then it could be ineligible for URAA protection. --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's better news than I was expecting. Thanks very much. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am looking to figure out whether a text has passed into the public domain, and would like some help from someone who understands copyright. The work is the book "The Gestapo Defied," by Martin Niemoller, translated by Jane Lymburn. Imprint date is 1942 (does not say copyright anywhere). made & Printed in Great Britain, William Hodge & Co, ltd. Appears to be public domain to me. Thoughts? Pastordavid (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. It might have been PD in the US before 1996 due to lack of notice; however, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act extended copyright protection in the United States to anything that wasn't public domain in the UK at the time. In addition, it is probably not PD in the UK because I believe the UK applies {{PD-old-70}}. It is doubtful that the author died in the year of publication. In any case, {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} applies so it won't be PD until at least 1937 and as late as 1947. (How does one determine the "some cases"?) Ryan Vesey 16:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I wasn't sure if it was figured by author's death or by publication. Asked and answered. Much appreciated. Pastordavid (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Just make sure you continue watching this. I've only recently become aware of URAA so my interpretation may not be correct. I'm also short on my British copyright law, so if it was PD before 1996 then it is PD in the US. Ryan Vesey 16:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is determined by author death and not publication, he died much later. Pastordavid (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Pastordavid, all editions are still under copyright.

• Google search: "The Gestapo Defied," by Martin Niemoller copyright
• Third result snippet: The Gestapo Defied, by Martin Niemoller, copyright 1941 by William Hodge & Co., Ltd. (Link)

Google books search for public domain editions (including alternate title "God is my fuehrer") yielded no PD editions.
Cheers.—Telpardec  TALK  16:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Pastordavid (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If I had made a picture/image myself, using my own software, why do i need permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leland Gray (talk • contribs) 00:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• If your image is a derivative of other pictures, then you may need permission. If you upload it to Wikipedia or commons then we need you to give permission to every one else by granting a license, preferably CC-BY-SA-3.0. For File:Back to the Grind Mixtape Cover.png you mention youtube and there is a background image that this would be a derivative of. Did you create the background picture and youtube video as well? If so then there needs to be more evidence of that supplied here. An email as per WP:PERMIT from you may sort this out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am new to uploading photos to wikipedia. The photo that I uploaded is File:Kristina Vaculik & Elena Davydova.jpg It is just a personal photo taken by the subject's mother who gave it to me for the purpose of using on webpages such as this. I have received the following notification:

The Wikipedia page "User talk:Geezerlaw" has been changed on 8 August 2012 by Future Perfect at Sunrise, with the edit summary: Notification: tagging for deletion of [[File:Kristina Vaculik & Elena Davydova.jpg]]. (TW)

I do not know how to correct it. Can someone help me - I don't want it deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geezerlaw (talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to get the copyright holder to directly email their permission to our OTRS Team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. The tag on the image page and on your talk page essentially tells you the same thing. The image must be freely licenced for us to keep it. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Would something like this only apply to the film, or to all promotional materials as well? Looks to be the only related entry in the database. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I added a photo I took, File:2008july4.jpg, of a signature event in our neighborhood when I was President of the neighborhood association. Melesse subsqeuently removed the picture because there was no tag on it.

If I add another of my photos in the same place, what tag should I use to be in compliance with the rules?

Sorry, this isn't my profession. I just found the list of licenses for work created by a contributor. If there's no easy way to add a photo I took, I'll just forget about it. I appreciate that you want to be sure that copyrights are respected, but you could add a simple way for people to contribute their own work just as we contribute our words.

Thanks - Bob BAlfson (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Bob if you took a photo that you would like to contribute to Wikipedia the main details you must add, in addition to the source, i.e., you is the copyright status which must be freely licenced. You previous image was deleted because you did not tell us what the licence was. You can choose {{PD-self}}, {{self}} or {{attribution}} as those often chosen by photographer uploaders. If you still think the original image is useful to the encyclopaedia, you can reupload it but you must provide all the necessary information asked for. Just click on the "Upload file" link on the left of any page and follow through. You can always ask someone here to review it for you. BTW no one is professional here, we are all volunteers and are happy to help those with less experience. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page for a better understanding of copyright issues. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to find the original source for this image: File:Hsl-River queen-neg.jpg. My goal is to obtain a high-res digital copy or a glossy print of it to reproduce in a book. Is it possible to find out where the image is from? Thanks, Ruthju (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Cbaer who uploaded it may be able to help you if you ask them on their talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Or, you may get some help here --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether the Tank Man image (File:Tianasquare.jpg) can be used in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 article. I argue that it can; User:Sameboat says that it cannot.

My argument is, first, that the non-free content use policy lists "Acceptable Uses," including the following under Images #8:

"Images with iconic status or historical importance: Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance."

The Tank Man image is a paradigmatic example of an image with "iconic status or historical importance" and it does "significantly aid in illustrating historical events." The other criteria (no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, contextual significance) are certainly met here.

User:Sameboat argues that the image is properly governed by examples #6 and #7 under "Unacceptable Uses" which state the following:

6. An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)

7. A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article.

I would argue first that neither #6 nor #7 applies here. As for #6, the particular Tank Man photograph in question here does not have its own article (although there is an article about the Tank Man). As for #7, the Tank Man photo is the subject of sourced commentary in the Tiananmen Square protests article (and if there's some dispute about whether there is enough sourced commentary, it would be very easy to add more).

I would further argue, more generally, that once it has been established that an image fits under the Acceptable Use criteria, the inquiry for whether it can be used should focus on the non-free content criteria, rather than the examples listed under Unacceptable Uses. The Tank Man image seems to clearly satisfy all 10 of the non-free content criteria, but I'm happy to walk through that point by point if others disagree.

Would appreciate input by others on this question. Terence7 (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Unacceptable Users" are guidelines, and while we generally follow them, there are exceptions. When there are conflating issues, NFCC policy is what we turn to.

While it is a press image, it's pretty damn obvious that the image itself is of significant note (per Tank Man)), but also has been an iconic image of the Tiananmen Square incident. This is a case where we would obviously allow the use of press images because we are talking about the image and its relative importance to the topic at hand. (going by the sourcing in the Tank Man image, its one of the most recognized images of the incident) And while the image itself has its own article, the legacy of the photo and the incident are so tied together (demonstrated by the sources, not just a random claim here) that not to have the photo on the incident page (the way that most of the Western world remembers it) is harmful. So, there should be no reason not to use the Tank Man image on the Tianamen Square page. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that this qualifies for fair use. The photo is clearly the subject of commentary in the article. See "The suppression of the protest was immortalized in Western media by the famous video footage and photographs of a lone man in a white shirt standing in front of a column of tanks which were attempting to drive out of Tiananmen Square. The iconic photo that would eventually make its way around the world was taken on 5 June on Chang'an Avenue". Ryan Vesey 18:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that there has been a deletion discussion for the image where consensus was established to only use the file in the Tank Man article. But if the previous consensus is changed in this new debate that's fine. De728631 (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-reading that discussion, I'm not 100% convinced that the solution is consistent. Certainly Tank Man should have it as that XFD shows, but most of the keep arguments were saying that standpoint as the minimum usage of the photo. I agree that based on that XFD being used in 4 different articles would be a huge question mark, but considering the importance of the photo to the event, to not use it in the event (and lacking a free image replacement, as the case of the Battle of Iwo Jima), it seems perfectly in line to use said photo just twice - once on the photo's page, another here. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll expand on that and say many of the arguments were wrong. I've noticed a lot of "this can only be used if the entire article is talking about the photo" arguments. We only require that the photo is the subject of commentary in the article and that the photo is important in explaining that commentary. Ryan Vesey 20:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that specific argument comes into play when we start talking about press agency photos. We need a stronger argument than just just helping for comprehensive to outweigh the commercial opportunity aspect; this is generally the case when the photo itself is of critical commentary. Once that aspect is met, we can then likely start talking about if the photo is so iconic of an event or person that it can be used on that other page; definitely the case with the Tank Man on the T. Square incident page, since we have sources noting that this is how most Westerns remember the incident as well as the powerful aspects of one person standing up against the tanks (read: no original research to convince for use). If the photo was from a press agency and we didn't have any sourcing to describe that importance, we would probably not allow its use. If the photo wasn't from a press agency, then we can be a bit more lax on NFC allowance. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The unacceptable use part of the NFC is guideline, so is the acceptable use. I wouldn't bring it out if we didn't have the tank man article, which is primarily about the photo, contrary to Terence7's claim that it isn't. I don't disagree there is source(s) to link the photo with the 1989 incident. My question is which part of the guideline weighs more. Simply saying the historical significance/importance isn't a strong point to override the unacceptable uses, you just made it clear that the usage conforms one of the acceptable uses, especially when it has already violated 2 unacceptable uses stated in the guideline. If the Tank Man article isn't only about the photo, I would like to ask if its usage in 1989 incident violates NFCC#2: Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

They are guidelines, which means we make common-sense exceptions, or fall back to policy (WP:NFCC) to make a determination. Per all guidelines, there are times where it makes sense to ignore all rules to improve the work, and in this case, because of the tight connection between the Tank Man image and the T.Square incident, even if it appears counter to that guideline, it makes sense to include it. (And technically, #7 is not at play since the Tank Man image is discussed in the article on the incident, as the most iconic image of the event). --MASEM (t) 00:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think IAR could come into play so easily when Wikimedia has strict copyright policy and meant to create a free encyclopedia which can also be used/printed outside of the project without requiring our users to pay extra royalty for the non-free materials. I also don't prefer we resort to "common sense" when potential offense of copyright law is part of the reason we're discussing right now. If the tank man has such significance in the 1989 incident, it upsets me this particular event doesn't appear in the intro prose of the 1989 incident article. Nevertheless, if the usage constitutes both acceptable and unacceptable uses, we should act cautiously to abandon the usage due to possible lawsuit against the Wikimedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe using the article will affect the owner's ability to make money? Ryan Vesey 01:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not "what I believe" but "what the judge believes". For your information, AP didn't approve fair use of their materials but this is obviously baseless. The problem is the standpoint of these agencies reminds us that we should conform to the copyright law as strict as possible, not gambling its legality. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.apimages.com/uns/splash/default.aspx?url=legal/licenseterms.html -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

AP cannot revoke the US law of "fair use" - that's written into Copyright Law. What we try to do is make sure that we, at minimum, address all factors that fair use law considers in judging if an image's use is under fair use or not, including factors about respect for commercial opportunities, balanced with the weight as transformation of use for educational purposes. (The WMF and NFCC goes farther to assure that we don't use non-free when free is available, etc.) So while we don't use willy-nilly inclusion of press agency photos, those that are so strongly tied to a topic as the Tank Man image are exceptional for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I mention NFCC#2 because the Tank Man photo is so popular. The value of a material is determined by its popularity, in other word, the commercial opportunities of the said image is so great which justifies the extended usage in 1989 Incident does pose an economic threat to the source agency. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is why, from the linked XFD where it was being used in 4 articles, overuse was a concern. Outside of Tank Man and the T. Square article, there's no other pages where using this image would make sense, so limiting its use on WP to 2 articles is reasonable within concern for commercial opportunity. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree; a photo's popularity/notoriety should not be considered the decisive factor in whether commercial opportunities are being respected in fair use of a non-free photo. WP:NFCC says that commercial opportunities are respected if Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. What is the original market role of this version of the Tank Man photo? News publications? Books? T-shirts? Posters? Album covers? Computer desktop wallpaper? Television? For any of these uses, the very low-resolution version of the photograph that we are talking about would not be useful at all. We are talking about a file that is 330 pixels by 218 pixels — tiny, in other words. If anyone can make specific suggestions, beyond simply pointing out the famous nature of the original photograph, for how this low-res, crappy version on Wikipedia could possibly "replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media," I'd love to hear it. Terence7 (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

NFC policy #2 and #3 are two independent requirements. My point is, using tank man photo in 1989 Protest article replaces the public media's editorial role to report or conclude the event of the incident. Without the tank man photo, the 1989 Protest article still has other free images of key figures for depiction. As such, the Tank Man photo isn't as vital as you've described for the Protest article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

With all respect, I think this is a pretty serious misunderstanding of the NFC policy. The whole point of Wikipedia is to disseminate useful information as much as possible (within legal bounds, of course). We are not concerned with whether the "public media's editorial role to report ... the event" will be affected by using the photo in a Wikipedia article. Many Wikipedia articles end up taking an important role in shaping the long-term popular understanding of some important event, even to the extent that they may displace efforts by others to write about the topic. That's completely OK and not our concern.

Rather, we are concerned with whether a limited use of a low-resolution version of the Tank Man photo (one version of it, that is) will replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. That's very different from how using this photo may affect the media's "editorial role." Don't conflate the two. I think the market role question is pretty clear (using the low-res version isn't a problem), as I argued above and as Brianwc agrees below. Terence7 (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the usage on these pages are clearly fair uses and in compliance with NFCC. Terence7 makes a good point that the low resolution versions used here are not harming any potential markets for the work. As others have explained, sources illustrate that this photo is a special case--it is often included on lists of the most iconic photographs of all time. And unlike other iconic photographs that are simply well-known or oft-reproduced, this one is inextricably tied to a particularly significant event in history and the photograph gets its iconic status from its association with that event. As mentioned, for most, the photo has become the image that is called to mind in association with the event. So, it would be bizarre for an article discussing the event not to include this photo. Brianwc (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A free encyclopedia requires all materials used in the article are as free as possible. There is free alternative like File:Goddess of Democracy replica.jpg (Goddess of Democracy) which was crafted to signify the outcry for democracy during the 1989 Protest. Therefore preferring a non-free material while its usage violates the unacceptable use is, self-explanatory, unacceptable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You write, "A free encyclopedia requires all materials used in the article are as free as possible." That's simply not true and is not what the NFCC policy states. If this is what you believe, then that helps illustrate why this disagreement is occuring, but it doesn't change the fact that it is not what Wikipedia's policies are. Every other contributor to this discussion has explained why the use is acceptable. Your other edits on that page are beginning to look like an attempt to whitewash a controversial political event through a misreading of Wikipedia policies. Hopefully that's not the situation here, but we can assume good faith only so long in the face of a preference for edit warring over accepting that yours is not the consensus view here. Brianwc (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not AGF the minute "whitewash" coming from your mouth. Free content is the goal of Wikipedia as stated in the first sentence of WP:NFC intro. Goddess of Democracy statue is the proper substitute for the intro infobox in place of Tank Man photo, it has a reasonable significance to the whole protest. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There's only one way I would stop arguing the Tank Man photo in the Protest article. Find some artist to draw an impression of the tank man scene with different perspective, release the copyright of the artwork and upload to Commons. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe you're seriously arguing that a photo of a bronze replica of the Goddess of Democracy statue (the original of which was made of plaster or something, right?) that is located in Virginia is a proper substitute for the Tank Man photo, which is the iconic image of the entire protests. Terence7 (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Replica or not doesn't matter. The Goddess of Democracy is the icon of the protest which heavily featured in many Memorials for the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, its significance to the protest article is no less than Tank Man photo, plus most of its photos are free. The fact that many replicas are located in the US and Canada means the statue has some considerable fame among the Westerners. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I could buy the argument that an original photo of the actual Goddess of Democracy, surrounded by students in Tiananmen Square in 1989, would be equally symbolic of and significant to the Tiananmen protests article as one of the Tank Man images. But a photo of a memorial statue (actually not even a replica, since it's so different) in Virginia? Come on... Terence7 (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You're patiently discussing this with a single individual who, four comments above, acknowledged that they will never stop arguing that the original photo should not be included in this article, so we are basically engaging with someone (again, a single individual) bent on tendentious editing and I'm not sure it's fruitful if there's already an admission that there's no willingness to see and be persuaded by another point of view. If you look at the Chinese article on this same event, a similar effort is underway by another username. It really appears to me that someone or some group wants to remove this and similar photos not based on copyright reasons at all, but in an effort at censorship that should be resisted. Brianwc (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The number of supporters doesn't matter, speaking of supporters I'm not alone but it's really not worth comparing. And I ask you to stop branding me censoring Wikipedia or whitewash, this is impolite. You have no base or evidence to address me like that. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's see: You're a Chinese guy who claims purely to be committed to making sure that US copyrights are protected on Wikipedia. Yet the only instance of your commitment to this cause is your attempt to have the Tank Man photo removed from Wikipedia. Your original argument was that it should not be allowed on any Wikipedia articles, which was obviously wrong and reflected your lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies (so how could your concern for copyright and Wikipedia policy have been your original motivation?...) Now you're trying to make sure it cannot be used anywhere else. Maybe you're wholly apolitical, or maybe you actually think the Tank Man was a hero and you hope that China becomes democratic someday. (Do you?) But surely you know your fenqing compatriots well enough to understand that, while it may be incorrect, it is hardly unreasonable or unfair for Brianwc or anyone else to have concluded that you are attempting to whitewash Wikipedia. Terence7 (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop judging my personality or political stance or anything unrelated to the topic, this is uncivil in a discussion and I might report you to WP:RFC/U, Brianwc as well for your labeling words like censorship and whitewash. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I stand by what I said. Terence7 (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Why not just use {{External media}} with a link to the external image? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be a slippery slope argument to remove all non-free content from WP, which is definitely not with consensus. A limited amount is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • No, you misunderstand me. It's obvious (to me) that Tank Man needs the picture, and fairly clear that it would be expected in the article on the protests. However, Boat has a pretty good point about this being a press photo and generally very limited in how it can be used. The template would eliminate such concerns and still allow the photo in the protest article — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
      • An internal link to a page that has the image could be possible, but we have to consider that articles also need to be considered in stand-alone, printed versions, and thus in this case, the question to ask is if the T. Square article is harmed by the omission of the Tank Man picture per NFCC#8; this is one of the few cases that I can emphatically agree "yes" to the harm not including the picture, since as noted, this is what most Western residences know of about this incident. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Having the link is less damaging than nothing, with which I'm sure you can agree. I personally don't like the template, and prefer nothing over an EL image (although if FU is applicable, I'll use it), but it's good middle ground in disputes like this, IMHO. That being said, I agree with Boat here that the special treatment of press photos makes the image not very viable in the protest article — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
          • What exactly is the special treatment of press photos that you're referring to? The content is either copyrighted or it isn't. Right? Terence7 (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
            • The image itself is clearly copyrighted. However, it can be allowed on Wikipedia in certain contexts under the fair use bit of US copyright law. Our own policies on using copyrighted work, specifically [[WP:NFC#UUI|]] #7, sets more stringent fair use criteria for press agency works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
              • Ah, yes — except that as others have suggested above, #7 doesn't restrict us here, because "the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article" (both the Tank Man article and the Tiananmen Square protests article). Terence7 (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
                • There's also the NFCC, which require "minimal use". That being said, I just offered an alternative. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
                  • Absolutely — though the minimal use requirement in NFCC isn't particular to press photos. Terence7 (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear - if this wasn't a press agency photo but merely a non-free image by some random person, we wouldn't be having an issue about its use in both Tank Man and the T. Square article. The crux of the debate is the fact that it is a press image which we in NFCC have highlight as being very cautious with use.

We set out in NFC guidelines that the likely only use of a press agency photo on WP is when the photo itself is critically discussed within its own article; this assures that we are actually talking about the photo itself and not just alluding to the events within it for no reason. That latter reason is typically acceptable for non-press historic images (eg several of the images in our war articles or those in Holocaust), but we can't go off that for press photos. Again, this just being consistent with NFC and making sure we don't have overuse of any particular non-free image.

That said, we have a situation where we have a critically recognized press photo that is widely known to be tied to the event. We have sources backing this up. There's a section in the T. Square article that describes how the Western knowledge of this event is specifically tied to the picture. Certainly this fully justifies the article on the image and the image's use there, but in the article on the T. Square incident itself, it's still the subject of discussion in light of all the other details given. It's not just using the image to allude to the events, it's pointing out that that image is a universal symbol of the incident. While we normally don't allow it, this is a case where the only strike against using the image is the press agency status; if it didn't have that, no one would question its use in the T. Square article. When we consider fair use, we are clearly showing the balance of educational use, transformation of that image with the supporting text in the T. Square article, and we aren't using the full size version of this image, thus respecting, as best as possible, the commercial aspects of the image. Per both NFC and Fair Use, that image is completely fine to be used on the T. Square article. Anywhere else, that would need to have a reasoning at least as strong that the T. Square calls for. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If you dreadfully require an iconic image to represent the protest article in the lede, Tank Man photo is not our sole option. We have Goddess of Democracy statue which is equally historically important as the Tank Man. By looking at The Holocaust, File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg (as well as other non-free images in the same article) is terribly overused and requires immediate review of its usage. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No one ever said about being the lead image, but arguably, given how much sourcing that ties the Tank Man image to the incident, it very well could be (see, for example Kent State Riot though this is not a press photo issue there). The first step is to assure that there is a valid reason per NFCC#8 for the Tank Man photo to be used on the incident page, and it does readily satisfy both parts (inclusion helps the reader, omission harms the reader). The only thing I bring up the Holocaust page for is to show how non press photos are typically more allowed when the photo itself is not the subject of discussion but alluding to events within it, not to specifically analyze any image in that. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Tank Man photo was originally used as the intro image for 1989 article. Quite the opposite per NFCC#8, Tank Man photo's omission can be substituted by Goddess of Democracy without harming the readers understanding of the event. If you're talking about using the photo in the Tank Man section, NFC#unacceptable use#image#6 prohibits it. And we're discussing solely about Tank Man image and the 1989 protest page. But I certainly don't agree the non-free images usage in Kent State Riot as well as The Holocaust. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I need to stress: The NFC#UUI are guidelines, open to reasonable common sense exceptions. Using the Tank Guy image on the T. Square incident page is a reasonable, common-sense exception given that it would otherwise fully meet all points of NFCC policy. The Goddess statue may be a memorial image, but it is not iconic with the event as the Tank Man one is; it is not a substitute for it. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Acceptable uses are guidelines as well, open to be overridden by unacceptable uses. It doesn' meet one or more NFCC as I stated, replaceability is the primarily concern, the photo is only irreplaceable in the Tank Man article, but no more. Goddess of Democracy is iconic. The replicas of the statue are to be found in the US and Canada. Favoring the non-free material over the free option when available goes against the very first sentence in the NFC. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what "iconic" means? The fact that most people, if shown the tank man picture without any other context about what it is, will recognize it as a T. Square incident, means that photo is iconic. I very much doubt the same is true of the Goddess statue. The latter is "memorable" about the incident but I doubt most people will recognize it. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the statue was crafted during the protest and still heavily featured in the post-protest memorial events give it iconic status. My point is, the prominence of the statue is not necessarily greater than the tank man photo, but no less either. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If the current statue replica photos do not suffice to represent the 1989 protest in the intro, zh:File:JUNE4-0P.jpg is totally viable because the photo was taken during the protest with protesters and the Tiananmen Square in the background. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The question isn't whether we should have the Tank Man photo or the Goddess of Democracy photo. The two photos obviously are not equivalent and the two questions should not be conflated. If it's OK to put the Goddess of Democracy photo in the article, by all means do so! But that doesn't preclude having other photos about the protests—such as the Tank Man photo.

The question, then, is whether we should have the Tank Man photo in the Tiananmen protests article versus not having the Tank Man photo in that article at all. For all the reasons already exhaustively outlined in this discussion, it is clear that including the Tank Man photo "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Terence7 (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Being an AP photo is a hindrance of the usage. NFCC#3a does limit the article to use only 1 non-free image when multiple non-free materials are present, so zh:File:JUNE4-0P.jpg is obviously a better choice because this one actually depicts a bunch of protesters participated in a protest event with an iconic memorial statue among them. 1989 Protest is not only about the Tank Man despite its media fame. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh, what? NFCC#3a says nothing like that. It says we use minimum non-free works, period. Whether that's zero, one, two, or twenty depends on a lot of factors. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Equivalent. A photo of the Goddess of Democracy does not convey information equivalent to that conveyed by the Tank Man photo. There are many people in this discussion now who have made that point.

Also, no one is saying that the protest was "only about the Tank Man." Don't make straw man arguments.

Again, as I said, if you think the Goddess of Democracy photo belongs in the article, then add it! I think it would be a great addition. (Although I must say I think logical consistency would dictate that you should be opposed to its use as well, since it is non-free content used on a "fair use" basis, and it's not apparent where the image came from—how do we know it's not a media image?) Terence7 (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

NFCC#3a is about "equivalent significant information", it doesn't mean we compare 2 different "tank man photos" (previously the AP and BBC's versions) and decide which one has better quality to be used. By that the statue and the tank man photo are conveying the same event in the 1989 article, they're comparable to be decided which one deserves the usage as per the policy. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comparing two different Tank Man photos? What are you talking about? No one has said anything about that. And no, the photo of the statue and the photo of the Tank Man are not "conveying the same event" as you put it. That's like saying a photo of D-Day and a photo of Iwo Jima are the same thing because they were both about World War II. Sure, the Goddess of Democracy and the Tank Man were both aspects of the Tiananmen protests. But one was during the gathering in the square; the other came after the troops had broken up the protest. One was part of a peaceful demonstration; the other was part of a physical confrontation. One is an image known primarily to Chinese people and scholars of China; the other is an image known around the world. Need I go on? Terence7 (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The statue isn't only known to Chinese. Bush gave his speech for the 1989 victims with the statue behind him and it is not known to Westerners, hello? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The Goddess of Democracy is hardly known to Westerners, in comparison to the Tank Man image which, as many sources in the Tank Man article and the Tiananmen protests article confirm, is well-known all over the world. It's actually kind of funny that you think the photo of Bush means anything. Are you aware of how many presidential photos are floating around out there? Terence7 (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Just one thing I wanna confirm before I give up this discussion: What exactly does the deleted file:Goddessofdemocracy-400x600.jpg depict? Is it the same one as zh:File:JUNE4-0P.jpg? (The original uploader User talk:Ohconfucius of this file is invited to this discussion.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ohconfucius retired... -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a photo of the statue under construction (top half, about half a dozen men on scaffolding putting things into place). --MASEM (t) 04:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI to those of you in this discussion: I'm going to have to take a Wiki-break for the next week or so. Good luck wrapping up this discussion. When consensus is reached, if I'm not back at that time, I'd encourage someone to make a note of this discussion on the Tank Man photo (this should supersede the deletion debate on that photo, as others noted above) and in the Tiananmen protest article as well if it's decided to include the photo there. Thanks to all for your input. Terence7 (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

On page 4 of this document is an image that I think is public domain. It was published in 1927 in a bulletin from the Canada Department of Mines. I'm reasonably sure this is its first publication, and that Crown Copyright should apply, making it PD. Am I correct? Chris857 (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes Crown copyright would apply, expired in 1978, and therefore recognized by USA also. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Are the images from the Official website (now archived) of the Government of the Republic of Serbia (during Serbia and Montenegro, 1992-2006) public domain (PD-SCGGov) ? For example from this page (regarding Best Sportspeople of the Year 1999-awards)? I've noticed the uploads such as File:Kadijevic.jpg, File:Smarov.jpg and File:Idma.jpg.--Zoupan 23:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Some people have suggested that {{PD-SCGGov}} only applies to text but not to images. See for example Commons:Template talk:PD-SCGGov. This could mean that a lot of the current use of that template is incorrect, and that a lot of images need to be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The image linked above was taken by the UN. Now as per this site, it's allowed to use UN images for non-commercial purposes, but another user told me the copyright may not be compatible with Wikipedia's definition of "Free" media. A bit of help please? -- Anurag2k12 (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you but non-commercial restrictions make UN images unacceptable for uploading here. ww2censor (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't meet our definition of "free" as we require the image to be able to be re-used for free by all entities, so a non-commercial restriction doesn't work. It still can be used for non-free, but it would need to have a non-free license (most likely {{Non-free fair use in}} and a non-free use rationale. You can mark the image with {{Non-free with NC}} to note the non-commercial aspect of it. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

But I uploaded it as free media. Should I have it deleted and re-uploaded? Or is there a way to change that aspect by editing? -- Anurag2k12 (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You can edit the file page to change the license to the appropriate non-free license and the non-free rationale. Be aware that this introduces the question if it is replaceable non-free media, as it is showing a helicopter that likely can still be photographed and uploaded as a free work. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks for telling. And I don't think it can be replaced with free media, since the event happened in the midst of a civil war in Sierra Leone. I don't think anyone except the UN could possibly take the photo there. -- Anurag2k12 (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Found this picture in a website maintained by a Philippine Army Unit. http://www.lightarmordivision.net.ph/simba.htm I believe it is a Free Media. Can I use it? Henryjones000 (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no indication this image is freely licenced. What makes you think it is? ww2censor (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This page [9] states this picture is not CC. Can we use it? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably under a fair-use claim so long as it complies with all 10 WP:NFCC policy guidelines. How much research or effort has been made to find a freely licenced image? As a UK politician a free image would seem reasonably likely to be found. You already have a fair-use image on his page though it would be better inside an infobox which is where most non-free identifying images of dead people are placed. This NPG one has all the background information so it would be preferable and then the existing one could be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi people! I have a small doubt hanging in my head since a while.While I was to Teen Murti Bhavan, I have taken some images of old B/W photographs kept in the hall for public display.I was wondering if these could be uploaded.Most of them are rare images and ones which are not found here. Cheers TheStrikeΣagle 16:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Your photos are derivative works so it depends on when and where the original photos were first published. Per commons:COM:L#India for India the usual copyright term is 60 years from first publication date though if they were published before 1941 the term was 50 years. ww2censor (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

hmm...most of them belong to the 1960s and 1970s...so I guess I can't upload them then? thanks for the reply Cheers TheStrikeΣagle 16:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with fair use claim. I have a much more recent photo taken by me but we want an image of him published in his hey day. I have come across a clip of "Lord Rockingham" at 2:50 on [10] (blink and you miss him). Kittybrewster ☎ 19:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A famous conman and MP. I got the image out of a book. Can't remember which. I claim fair use of dead person. I have asked a guy on the internet to replace it with a better image. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

How can I google for a fair use picture? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't. He is still alive, so a fair use picture wouldn't be acceptable. See WP:NFC#UUI §1. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

How about Horatio Bottomley? - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I managed to find a public domain image of him (see right), so I assume that a fair use image wouldn't be allowed, although it could maybe be debated due to the bad quality. On the other hand, given his age, I wouldn't be surprised if it would be possible to find better public domain images elsewhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This photo appears to be in the public domain as it was taken by Amy Worden, 09/1991, for the Maryland Historic Trust, for a National Register nomination to the Lawyers Hill Historic District, Elkridge, Maryland. This image appears on: https://apps.mht.maryland.gov/nr/NRDetail.aspx?NRID=1114

What exact public domain copyright tag should I use for this?

Thank you. Archivist Robert.

Robert, what makes you think this might be in the public domain? It's not old enough, there is no statement that it is freely licenced and it is not work of the federal government. I can't see anything that would make this PD. If the building still exists then you can go and take a new photo of it and release that freely. ww2censor (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a postcard photo of my grandfather who was a marathon runner in the 1910's. My dad has a bunch of them around the house and there is always one laying around somewhere. I would love to add this to his wiki page but am uncertain about copyrights. I can't really imagine that anyone would own this image other than my dad and his brother but the discussion around copyright is so scary on wikipedia that I'd prefer to have someone tell me it's ok before i just load it up. Any thoughts?

DannyJohansson (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer requires knowing exactly where you live, because the laws in the UK and the US are different. and even the US copyrights are different based on where it was first published, if it was published (I'm assuming it's one of those two, based on your contributions). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I live in the United States, and it would have likely been published (printed?) in either the US or Sweden. DannyJohansson (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this photo all right to upload? Although it is old, I wonder if it is profitable and irreplaceable. --George Ho (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You can probably make a fair-use claim for this image of a deceased person for use in the infobox of the subject. ww2censor (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

So, I've nominated an image of a statue I uploaded to Larry Buhler for deletion because there is no Freedom of Panorama in the United States. In this case, the statue would still qualify for fair use. Is it permissible to use this image or do I need to take a picture myself? Both would be fair use. Ryan Vesey 14:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Images of statues, where no freedom of panorama exists, are non-free and as such are normally only used in articles about the statues themselves and not in articles about the subject of the statue per WP:NFC#UUI #9. You can't use either image mentioned in the Larry Buhler article though as a deceased person a non-free image of Larry himself would be acceptable per WP:NFCI #10. Good luck finding one. ww2censor (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I know where an image of Buhler can be found actually. The statue should be acceptable as the subject of commentary on the statue (I plan to expand the text there). Ryan Vesey 14:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A photo of a statue has two copyrights: the copyright of the photo and the copyright of the statue. The statue isn't replaceable, but the photo is replaceable, so I think that it makes sense to use a photo which is available under a free licence so that only the statue copyright is violated. Besides, if the photo is available under a free licence, it makes the whole image usable in countries which do have FOP for statues. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So I have to walk two blocks to take a picture? Not too much of a problem, but I might be the worst photographer in the history of the world. How would it be licensed then? Just under the most restrictive license, or would it be doubly licensed, once for the statue and once for the photo? Ryan Vesey 15:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

{{Non-free 3d art}} would do for those copyrighted statues. Since you are a photographer of this photo, {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} should do, as well. --George Ho (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

He there, We're an afghan NGO called Skateistan. Today we wanted to renew the SketistanPage and add some infobox with logo and other fotos. Unfortunatly we dont have the rights to upload images yet. And our request for getting the rights was declined. So how can i upload the logo. Its a copyrighted logo and we are the owners but i cant find something like this in your wizards.

need help plz.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhianonB (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Try asking at WP:FFU. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would really like to use the hand-copy published on page 286 of this article, by Nathaniel Reich, published in JEA in 1924. Although Dr. Reich taught at Dropsie College in Philadelphia, the article was published by the Egypt Exploration Society in London. Do I correctly understand that the copyright for this image is under the jurisdiction of the UK, and therefore should, according to copyright situations by country, come into PD 70 years after the author's death? Dr. Reich, as far as I can find, died in 1943... so does this mean that as of January of next year I will be able to use the image for wikipedia? I want to be sure before I take the step of uploading it... --Iustinus (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia works about US copyright law; Commons worries about US copyright law and the law of the source nation. Normally the US gives 95 years of copyright from publication to pre-1978 works, with pre-1923 works remaining out of copyright. However, the US required registrations and renewals, and it doesn't look like the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology complied with those rules. However, the US restored copyright to most foreign works, so the Journal as a whole would have had restored copyright. However, assuming Dr. Reich was an American--was he, e.g., born in the US?--it probably wouldn't have restored copyright on the parts he authored.

(As a side note, copyright almost invariably runs the full period and through the end of the year. If he died in 1943, copyright in the UK will extend to 70 years after died--sometime in 1943--and then on through the end of 2013.)

The US doesn't have the rule of the shorter term, so this if copyrighted will be copyrighted until 2020 (1924 + 95 years). If Reich was an American citizen, it's safe to say it's not copyrighted, and could be uploaded here now and to Commons in 2014.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand—I don't have a very good background in copyright law. What you're saying is, the US renewed most foreign copyrights as a courtesy, but if Reich was an American citizen (and according to this bio he was), it would have been up to him to "restore" it himself? And since you found no record of a restoration it comes down to that very issue, namely a citizen's deliberate renewal, vs. the automatic courtesy renewal extended to non-citizens?

Thanks for the explanation. It drives me crazy that getting rights for a two-millennium-old ostracon should be so dicey.

--Iustinus (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The US required various bureaucratic rules be followed if someone wanted copyright for their work, including renewal after 28 years. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology apparently didn't follow these rules, including the last (which Reich could have done himself). These rules violated the Berne Convention, so the US didn't sign for many years. When we did drop those rules and sign the Berne Convention, we left those works out of copyright. Then the other nations got all upset, so we gave older foreign works copyright even if they hadn't followed those rules, but left older American works (including stuff by American authors) in the public domain. A hairy historical mess.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

1. CAn I use this image http://envfor.nic.in/images/home/ntcalogo.png from http://envfor.nic.in/modules/public-information/home-archive/ for National Tiger Conservation Authority. if yes under what license ?
2. can it also be used for Project Tiger as the official website features it. second opinions welcome--DBigXray 22:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Yes under fair use provision logos are usable for the organisation they are for.
2. No because it would just be a decoration, not being the symbol for this project. So not complying with WP:NFCC. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If, for example, I find a film review on a site which probably has permission to host it but such permission is not explicitly stated, is it still linkable per WP:ELNO? In this case, there's a film review from Rolling Stone Indonesia hosted at filmindonesia.or.id, which is useful as the actual website doesn't have the review anymore. If its not linkable, is it at least usable? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This would be OK as there is no suspicion it is a copyright infringement. It is best to link where you actually got the info from, rather than just where your source said it originally come from if you cannot see it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• File:Ronald Reagan and General Electric Theater 1954-62.jpg

I'd like to verify that this pic--from the Ronald Reagan Library--is public domain? Thanks, – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 06:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's quite possible that the Ronald Reagan library knows that this photo was distributed publically without copyright notice prior to 1989, but it would be challenging to establish that ourselves. It is listed here as a public domain image from the Ronald Reagan archives. This is the type of ephemera that it's likely to be in the public domain, and a physical original would provide evidence (but rarely proof) that it was PD, but an electronic copy is hard to establish as PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So we keep the pic at commons? – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 08:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to nominate it for deletion. The simple fact that they don't have an exact date means that their copy didn't have a copyright notice attached. I'm inclined to trust them, but if you're a less-trusting sort, we really don't personally know ourselves one way or the other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In terms of due diligence I think this is he best we can do as laymen, and a preponderence of the evidence suggests that the image is PD. Thanks for your time. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 05:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This is more of a general heads-up - I've posted over on the WP Olympics talkpage about the need to watch the licencing on photos taken within Olympic venues, where the tickets require that any photography is non-commercial. There seems to be a particular problem with people putting photos on Flickr under CC licences and then Wikipedians grabbing them from Flickr and in many cases putting them on Commons where they certainly wouldn't belong if uploaded by the original photographer. The WP Olympics discussion links to past threads based on the Beijing Games, it seems this is a bit of a grey area but the IOC has got antsy in the past. The London Games have another wrinkle in that some of the unticketed events took place in Royal Parks where the restrictions on photography are arguably even greater (and enshrined in UK law as opposed to part of a contract with the ticket purchaser). Does anyone fancy keeping an eye on Category:2012 Summer Olympics and the Commons equivalents? Le Deluge (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This non-commercial restriction is a non-copyright restriction. Any free licences for photos from the Olympics are valid. If the IOC doesn't approve commercial use of the photos, then the IOC could sue the photographer for violating the terms specified on the ticket, but this is only an issue between the IOC and the photographer. This doesn't prevent anyone else from using the photos under the specified licences.

Over at Commons, someone suggested that the IOC are forcing Flickr users to remove photos of the Olympics from Flickr. It thus becomes impossible to verify that the specified licences applied at some point, so photos may have to be deleted. For that reason, it is very important that photos of the Olympics are uploaded to Commons with the {{flickrreview}} template as soon as possible so that the licence is reviewed. If you upload the images using one of the usual Commons upload bots, the licence is reviewed automatically.

Also note that Commons:COM:FOP#United Kingdom only applies to works which are permanently installed. There are some artworks at the Olympics which are only installed temporarily. Photos of those temporary installations violate copyright law and can't be uploaded. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

my image was deleted and its cryptic to me as to why — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougmoe63 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on your contributions, we're talking about File:AVANU Logo and WebMux appliance graphics file.jpg (which has been deleted). The problem is that the article it was used in, Webmux, is a piece of hardware, so we should be able to get a free image of that piece of hardware to use to ID it. But the image you provided was a copyrighted image from the hardware manufacture that included their logo and other details. Per our non-free content policy we can't use non-free images when free images can be made. And no, you can't just trim down that image to just the hardware, you need to take a new photo of it, and release it as free content for it to be used here. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this logo creative enough to be copyrighted in the United States? --George Ho (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. Compare with Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BF-Schriftzug.png (de:Datei:BF-Schriftzug.png). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

May I upload this cover in Harry Potter in translation? I'm sure that uploading an image there is fair use, isn't it? --George Ho (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not just an open class ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.171.41 (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a category, but we dont know what 93 is talking about. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Are these valid? In India, the main difference between the soundtrack cover and a film poster is that they bear a logo containing the identification of a soundtrack, and this serves no purpose (it does not illustrate critical commentary), nor does it help the reader understand the soundtrack. In most cases, I used to remove them on this basis. Recently, a thread was initiated after I repeatedly took away the cover from an article, which soon turned into the edge of bad faith accusations. Can I have opinions from editors on this? As far as I can see, the copyrighted covers are not necessary and have no contextual significance. Secret of success (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If the non-free image of the soundtrack is somehow notable as an image which is different from the main film image, then it can be included with an explanation of how it is notable and how it has excited comment. Of course it will need a non-free fair use rationale. If both the main image and the soundtrack image are non-free then there must be a bomb-proof fair-use rationale for it to be included in the article.

I have nominated the soundtrack image for deletion. Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 16. See you there. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

To what level must the soundtrack cover be different as compared to the film poster? At present, many GA's like Mughal-e-Azam, DDLJ and Sholay have the cover, and are not exactly similar to the poster. How should we judge in these cases? And if the soundtrack has a separate article, can we use the cover instead of the poster? Secret of success (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

At minimum, if its the same art assets, cropped or rearranged differently, the soundtrack cover is unnecessary. For example, if the soundtrack image of Chicago: Music from the Miramax Motion Picture appeared on the article for Chicago (2002 film), it would be repetative and should be removed. (As a separate article, it's okay). The three immediately above seem okay since the differences are significant even though if you put the film poster and CD cover together, you might be able to guess they're connected. The Ek Tha Tiger case is definitely where I would not include the soundtrack cover because it is so reasonably close - yes, the actors are in a slightly different pose, it's a closeup, etc., but the coloring, clothing, fonts, and other presentation elements are common enough to be unmistakable. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion Talk:Bobak_Ferdowsi#Image here: I'd figured a screencap from a NASA video clip would quality as usable under the usual policies around US government work, and in view of a lack of copyright notice that I found. Another editor pointed out that the comments about commercial use at http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/imagepolicy/ -- which I hadn't seen, might preclude us correctly using the image. I admit to being clueless here, should I have the image deleted from Commons? Is it okay to use here? Any assistance appreciated. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: The image in question is here. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As I am reading the JPL aspect, I would argue that any free image of a person we have would fall under the same issues of right of publicity, regardless if it was a NASA/JPL employ or not (at least in America or specific states). I think this is an implicit understanding that photos of living persons are "free" but by law protected by commercial rights. I'm sure this likely has been discussed before, since it can't be a unique case. You may want to check Commons on this factor as well. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Aha, here we go, Commons:Photographs of identifiable people describes the situation. In this case, while we can assume that the JPL clip was done in a private location (on badge-restricted JPL), by appearing and named on film, he's clearly consenting to it, so it passes that test. As for the commercial aspect, you should specifically add the "Template:Personality rights" [11] to the photo on Commons, that puts the onus on the reuser to assure they aren't violating the personality rights of the person shown. It can otherwise be kept at Commons since we're still considering the general use of that image as free. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool, that makes sense, and I learned something new.  :) Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 19:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah me too thanks. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Follow up question re: NASA photographs. I've found a motherload of a great NASA photographs on Flickr, for example this image. It is the NASA Flickr account, but the Copyright there is CC-BY-NC (non-commercial use) which is not allowed on Wikicommons. My understanding is NASA images are public domain, I'm not sure how to reconcile. Possibly NASA by using Flickr, a non-government website, it is able to retain non-commercial use only? (though in practice it seems every news agency uses the pictures anyway). Green Cardamom (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on the flickr image credit, this "Bill Ingalls" is likely the one that tagged them CC-BY-NC. If he is not a NASA employee, then he probably has the right to set the license to a non-PD version. You can try to contact the flickr account and ask about changing the licenses for use in WP, which is the angle I'd take instead of trying to reconcile the difference between the general PD-ness of NASA products and those images. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bill Ingalls is a "NASA photography staff". It looks like a lot of his photos are uploaded to Internet Archive as well (in an official NASA capacity), for example. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll start a new discussion over at Commons (Commons:Village pump/Copyright). Green Cardamom (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

are three copyright imagaes of a fictional character appropriate for this article Michelle Bauer (Guiding Light)? the character was portrayed by three different actresses and the entire content of the article is essentially "The character was portrayed by Actress A, Actress B and Actress C." -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely yesNO - and heck, that article shouldn't exist at all if that's all that can be said about the character. Free photos of the actresses are fine, but not 3 non-frees if the article remains. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thats what I thought, but someone disagrees. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, i have this image i took but have been told to use a publicity image instead. Can someone advise me on the copyright issues of this and how i should go about this? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The design of the physical nature of the phone can't be copyrighted (it's utilitarian); the UI however is copyrighted, but you can always post-process to black out or blur the UI to hide it, and thus make a free image. Unless the publicity image has been released under a free license, we always go with the free option per NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So even running Android i must black the screen and photograph it? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

While the OS may be open, any art assets are going to be copyrighted, so yes, for photos of phones to be used on articles about phones, the screen should be black/off, or can be blacked out or blurred out in the photo. Personally, black/off screen before the photo gives a better looking image. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll take your advice and replace the image. It will take almost a week to swap the images over though. If i do this is there any copyright issue with the words "Sony Ericsson" being visible on the front of the phone? Thanks for your help ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Sony Ericsson logo, and the other faceplate elements, are simple enough to fail the threshold of originality and would be non-copyrightable; so a photo like the above, but sans the screen, would remain free. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, you've been very helpful! ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

File:StarCraft Ghost title.jpg is currently marked as copyrighted, however I believe that PD-textlogo might be more applicable. Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 14:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The glow, embossing, and other facets are all creative enough to pass threshold of originality. Its definitely non-free. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Masem. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Way too complex background. There is no chance that this is too simple for copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to check before I upload things It looks like the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos)'s website is licensed under a pretty permissive license. http://www.roscosmos.ru/ says "Полное или частичное использование размещённых на сайте материалов, публикуемых от имени Роскосмоса, - возможно только с обязательной ссылкой на сайт (пресс-службу) Роскосмоса." which is (roughly) 'full or partial use of materials published on this site published on behalf of the Russian Space Agency, is possible only with an obligatory reference to the press office of Roscosmos". Is this an attribution license, and hence okay, or do I need to presume no derivative works, and hence not okay? Thanks. Secretlondon (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The license for tthis Tufts University website reads:

"This site was produced for free distribution by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without requiring permission from Tufts University. However, please credit Tufts University and do not change any of the content."

Would attribution be sufficient?Smallman12q (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the inability to change the content means it can't be built on, which is not fully compatible with our required free licenses. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

hello,

could someone tell me if this video is free, and is it possible to upload the full video? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think it's free? It's certainly no where near old enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Over at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Illegal posting of phot, there is a complaint about a file uploaded in 2008:

76.31.222.250 (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC) My copyrighted photograph on page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RitaHoustonEvacuation.jpg#filehistory was illegally posted also illegally giving all rights to anyone. I need it removed and individual's posts reviewed for other illegal posts.

I noted that it was first uploaded to English Wikipedia by User:Shinoda28107 as "self-made" on 22 March 2008, at 20:47. It was moved to Commons, so it is now at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RitaHoustonEvacuation.jpg on Wikimedia Commons. I advised them to go there and click "Report copyright violation" in the Toolbox. What more can we do? Can anyone find the original source of the image? Can we review the other uploads of this user? (made trickier by the move over to Commons). Fences&Windows 19:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, identifying the original source of the photograph is really something the complainant should do. If he wants to demonstrate it's his, the obvious thing to do is to show where he published it prior to its being on Wikipedia. I took a brief look at other uploads by Shinoda28107 and it's a bit inconclusive: most of his other uploads were deleted for various reasons; his earlier uploads all lacked all source/copyright info, so he can be described as an unreliable uploader, but there's so far no case of a known, proven copyvio with an intentionally false "own work" claim. The only other image of his that's still there is File:Uptown Houston BusRes District.jpg, for which I can't see a reason to assume the licensing to be false. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That anonymous complainer would save us time and effort and certainly make the verification of his request a lot easier if he at least provided an original source and/or identified himself (which should not be a problem if the photo was professionally published). Anyway, this site looks like it has some context. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for digging that up. This seems clear enough. I've requested speedy deletion on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Deleted; uploader blocked (apparently multiple other false claims from them) -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

ola, bom dia..

tenho em maos um disco de vinil achado numa demolicao de uma casa por meu esposo. do cantor andrew lloyd webber and tim rice. estava entre as paredes de uma casa que ele esta construindo.. contatos:857 3121726/rosangela observacao:falo portugues.

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.130.125 (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Google translation: hello, good morning ..

I have in hands a vinyl record found in a demolition of a house for my husband. andrew lloyd webber the singer and tim rice. was within the walls of a house he is building ..

Contact: 857 3121726/rosangela

observation: speak Portuguese.

So, is there question a copyright question you want answered? ww2censor (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I have uploaded 2 diagrams to the Kallmann Syndrome page as they illustrate the text very well. One of the files is marked for deletion, I presume the other will be soon as they were posted at the same time.

File:Diagram showing the disruption of the hormonal pathways of puberty due to the failure of GnRH release seen in KS and HH.gif

File:Flow diagram showing normal hormonal control of puberty.gif

I have been given permission to use these diagrams. They were created over 15 years ago for a booklet on Kallmann syndrome which is available for free both in print form and in PDF form from myself. The booklet and diagrams first appeared on the www.hypohh.net website which is now dormant, but I was in control of before all the content passed to the www.kallmanns.org website. If you go to both of these websites you will see my name on the copyright symbol on both websites.

I am not sure how to label these diagrams or prove that I do own them. I have no idea of the name of the person who created them apart from the fact they were created by the Medical Illustration department at the Royal Free Hospital where I used to work. As far as I am concerned I am happy for them to be freely available for anybody to use now. I would like to be able to keep them on the page as I think they are very helpful. I would appreciate any help in being able to label these diagrams correctly. I can provide an e-mail from the kallmann-syndrome at hotmail domain confirming all this if required.

Thank you. Neilsmith38 (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

All you need to do is to have the copyright holder confirm their freely licenced permission by email to our OTRS Team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Would the flip that Jerome Simpson had be eligible for fair use? You can see it around 2:45 in this video. I'd assume the portion would be from 2:48 to 2:50. Ryan Vesey 00:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Simpson did a front flip over a tackler and landed on his feet in the touchdown zone to score." No, easily described by words. --MASEM (t) 06:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I took this photo of a company's headquarters building at the request of the company to place on a Wiki page. After receiving a warning that it is non-free use, I would like advice on next steps. I believe it would be best to transfer it to be freely licensed media, but am not sure how to do that.Securejc (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You did work out how to do it, by releasing your image under a free license, thankyou. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright for File permission and problem with File:Abdul Ghafoor Khan Durrani.jpg, Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Khan Durrani is dead and this is his picture for public use released by his grand son Abdul Sattar Khan durrani Baloch Baba 23:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baloch Baba (talk • contribs)

Because there was no permission provided, you need to get the copyright holder confirm their freely licenced permission by email to our OTRS Team by asking them to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a program called Chemsketch.

Chemsketch is great for chemistry. It lets you, among other things, draw molecules easily and view them in 3D.

Would taking pictures of these molecules, both in 2D and 3D, and uploading them be allowed? Or is it considered licensed and copyrighted by Chemsketch?

Thanks!

--Activism1234 00:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Normally if you drew the molecule with a drawing package then you would own the copyright on the output. However you must make sure in your reproduiction that you do not reproduce other parts of the software appearance such as tool bar etc. If there is clipart included, such as the chemical apparatus, the software should have some kind of license about that which may be restrictive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to know if I can post the map of a local zoo (Vandalur zoo, Chennai, India) from its official web site. It is very much essential for the upgradation of the article. If no, is there any other means to do the same? Thanks in advance!Challengethelimits (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

THe answer for this is no, since it is non free and is replaceable by you drawing another map. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it allowed to copy and upload google book scans of an image that because of age is PD? Example: Copy of Samuel Donnet drawing. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If you clip off the additions that Google add then it is OK. Notice that Google put a "copyrighted materials" note on the bottom. Actually likely to be a fraudulent claim, so make sure you remove that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to use {{PD-scan|PD-old-100}} at Commons as a license. De728631 (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have uploaded this now (thumb to the right) and detailed the source(s), please contact me if I did something wrong. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Are UNICOR works copyrighted? Specifically, can their online catalogs be used under {{PD-USGov-DOJ}}?Smallman12q (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I called up Fredo Corleone on google and found the Wikipedia entry on Fredo - from the Godfather movie. I would like to use some excerpts from it with minor variations in wording without changing the meaning just to keep the word count down. Do I need special permission or to fill out specific requests or can I do this without violating owner/copyright laws. Would it be considered free use to do so? I know the movie and book are copyright, but I'm not sure if specifying a scene in the movie, or speaking about a character would violate any owner rights. Thank you. John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.27.104 (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a read of Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content which describes that you can reuse content, but with conditions that you may or may not wish to comply with, such as licensing your content with CC-BY-SA-3.0. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For instance, the image of William Sadler on this Wiki page: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/William_Sadler

Since it is on another Wiki, is it suitable to upload as the main photo for William Sadler's page (which lacks any photos)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiltzandrew (talk • contribs) 07:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Wikia doesn't provide any information about a source or a licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For works such as films or whatnot, does the copyright exist in both the colonising country and the colony, or only one, for the purposes of establishing URAA extensions? For example, File:Lily van Java scene.jpg was released in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) in 1928. Indonesia became independent in 1945. In Indonesia, the film would have become public domain in 1978 and thus not been extended by the URAA; however, in the Netherlands the image only became public domain in 1998 and thus would have fallen afoul of the URAA. How did the US apply the URAA in such situations? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've answered at Commons:CT:L#Colonial copyright and URAA. Please only discuss matters at one place. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Considering the pages have a different audience, there's no harm in at least mentioning it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This image appears to be a film still. I don't think 1928 technology would make this image a modern-made screenshot, is it? In fact, it appears too crisp and too clear to be a today's screenshot. --George Ho (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Possible. Source is unclear, only says "a scene from Lily van Java") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a question. If I make a sketch of an actor, using a photograph as a reference, will the sketch be mine and can I release it into the public domain? Red Hat On Head (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the answer to this? Ryan Vesey 16:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If the sketch is identifiably based on a specific photograph, then you run into the probability that somebody could claim it is a derivative work from that photo. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

See [12] or [13]. It's a derivative work.Smallman12q (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The file picture I uploaded to the Landt Trio page - File:The Landt Trio on CBS.jpg - was the property of my father, Karl Landt, who died in 1997. It was a publicity picture owned by the Trio. My sister and I are my father's heirs. While we did not create the picture, we own it. How do I establish this to satisfy Wikipedia criteria? I am new to Wikipedia. Any help you can give me will be greatly appreciated. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlsdotter (talk • contribs) 00:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you own the physical copy of it is irrelevant. The copyright holder may be someone else. Normally, the copyright holder is the photographer or the photographer's heir. You are the heir of one of the people appearing on the photo, so the photo was taken by someone else, and so the copyright holder is not you but someone else. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A contributor has uploaded quite a number of images which will be very useful for a number of articles. However, I am unclear how we establish the copyright status of some of them , and am looking for assistance. This one File:Geronimo, St. Louis World's Fair, 1904.jpg, for example, is from 1904, and should easily be pd.

Similarly, this one File:Chief Flying Hawk and Annie Oakley, 1916.jpg is dated 1916, so should be pd. However, this one File:Chief Flying Hawk, Informal, Profile.jpg is undated, what do we do in this case?

I believe the complete set of images can be found here: contributions.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Basically, you need to determine if the images have been published, and if so, when and where they were published.

1. Image not published before 2003. In that case, it is copyrighted for life+70 years. If the photographer is anonymous, the copyright expires 120 years after photography. Thus, known photographer means OK if death before 1942, and unknown photographer means OK if taken before 1892.
2. Image published shortly after it was taken. In that case, pre-1923 images are fine. Other images may be fine depending on copyright formalities.
3. Image published long after it was taken. In that case, it may be copyrighted regardless of age.

The problem is that the uploader hasn't specified whether any of the images have been published or if those images are private images kept in private photo albums (in which case they presumably are unpublished). File:Chief Flying Hawk and Annie Oakley, 1916.jpg seems to have been scanned from a photo (and not from a book). If someone went through the trouble of locating a photo instead of locating a book, this may suggest that the photo is unpublished.

Unless we have indications of the opposite, we can probably rule out the possibility that an image was published long after it was made (e.g. made in 1700, first published in 2000, which would make the image copyrighted until the end of 2047). However, we really need better sources: have the images been published somewhere, and if so, where? Without any evidence of publication or any information about the photographer, I think that we have to treat them as anonymous unpublished photos (which are then required to be at least 120 years old). --Stefan2 (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I want to combine File:Schloss Ortenberg im Mi 2008.jpg and File:Field of Flowers in taiwan.jpg with my own original image. How do I license and copyright the finished image? I would like to publish the image on my own copyright. Thank you. Urse (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

First establish that the images have licenses that allow free modification. Images hosted on commons should be like this. Your new license will be determined by what is on these images. Since they do not link to anything I cannot give specific advice. You will have to give the attribution for all the images you use and explain where you got them from. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You are apparently referring to File:Schloss Ortenberg im Mai 2008.jpg File:Field of flowers in taiwan.jpg. The former has been released into the public domain so you don't need to obeye any license there. The latter is licensed as Creative Commons 2.0 (unported) with attribution. This means that you are required to name the original author HH1 (Flickr) when you select a new free license for your modified image. So when you use {{information}} you may fill in the "source" parameter with information for each of the three files and the combined work, e.g.

1. File:Schloss Ortenberg im Mai 2008.jpg
2. File:Field of flowers in taiwan.jpg by HH1
3. <description of your original image> and combined image: own work by Urse.

For information on suitable free licenses for your derivative image have a look at Wikipedia:Licenses#For image creators. De728631 (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the imfo., Can I use this derivative work outside of Wikipedia ex: published in a book? Will the author of File:Field of flowers in taiwan.enjoy any of the profits on sale of the book? Urse (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to have an image of Taniyama in the article about him. My Google searches turned up this image and a lot of other versions of the same image on other websites. However, I don't have any information about the photos copyright status, although even if it were not in the public domain, it would definitely be appropriate under NFCC. Does anybody know, who is the copyright holder of that image or perhaps where a version of better quality could be obtained? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be very nice to know if it was first published in Japan... Considering that he died in 1958, there is quite a big chance that the photo is {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}, but the image is only in the public domain in the United States if it was first published in Japan. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm about to start writing an article on the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, the New Zealand government's response to the 2011 Christchurch earthquake (some 70% of the buildings in the central city have been demolished). The official plan has a puzzling copyright status. On page 60 of the PDF version, you'll see:

• Crown copyright, and
• creative commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand (CC BY 3.0)

Is the crown copyright statement there so that individuals and companies who have worked on the plan know that they don't have the copyright themselves, but that it rests with the crown, which in turn has chosen to release everything under CC BY 3.0? If so, am I free to copy text and images from the plan, stating that I've done so, as it was released under CC BY 3.0? Schwede66 18:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking around, we're basically seeing a result of this document [15], the goal of NZ's gov't to issue all of its works as a public governing body under CC. Even the first page of that document has this: "Crown copyright ©. This copyright work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand licence. In essence, you are free to copy, distribute and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to the State Services Commission and abide by the other licence terms. " That means: the work is copyright the NZ government under its Crown Copyright, and have licensed its reuse under the CC terms. (In other words, for us, it's free media, yay). The Crown Copyright will expire at some point, putting the work into the public domain after which the CC-BY 3.0 doesn't mean too much, but it remains effectively free. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! Schwede66 20:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

With this CC license, CC 3.0 New Zealand, it does not have the requirement of derivative works being made of the same license and may be made with a stricter Creative Commons license and of course attribution meaning always give the credit to the Crown government as part of the requirment of use! --Amadscientist (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Attribution is never a problem with what we call "free licenses". And we expect free content to remain free content even if used in commercial works, which the NZ CC license supports. As confirmation, Commons has a template for this and used on hundreds of works. --MASEM (t) 04:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Everybody...

I've a question concerning uploading our own Logo and some more Pictures of our afghan NGO Skateistan. We have all the rights to our pictures and to our logo and want to upload them to make our Wikipage look nicer and give some visual underlining to our project. Of course our logo is a trademark and a TM. So when i want somebody else to upload our logo (because i am not confirmed) nothing fits for the wizrd. What should i do...? Also we want to publish three more pictures to different sections and we are the owner of them. These pictures can be used by everyone as long as they related to skateistan. My problem is that we don't have a legal link on our webpage www.skateistan.org so i can't prove the copyright to the uploader...

We are reachable through our domain registered email address. Would communication through this channel provide addiquate proof of our association with Skateistan and therefore evidence of our copyright ownership — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhianonB (talk • contribs) 13:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for details. There is a section "Granting us permission to copy material already online" which describes how to send permissions of re-use to the Wikimedia Foundation by email. De728631 (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new picture to the article Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold where Harris points to the camera with a pistol. That footage was released under public domain in 2003 by the Jefferson County Sheriff Department, but I find no public domain tags to put in the picture rather than the U.S. federal government work which I know is not the right one for the picture. Can you help me? Which public domain tag is right for this picture? Thank you Nienk (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Here you would use {{PD-release}} and add in the evidence that the sheriff's department released it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done it now, could you check if it's right now? Thank you indeed. Nienk (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence on the provided source website to support the public domain claim. It states the images are released to the public which just means they were release for the public to see but does not give them a PD licence. It is also unlikely that the owner of the website http://www.columbine-online.com/ can licence such an image freely and he does not provide evidence for the PD release claim. We really need an OTRS permission to keep this image. ww2censor (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold you'll find a picture of Eric Harris pointing to the camera with his pistol. I was told by the owner of the website from which I took out the picture that it was free, released into the public domain by the Sheriff Department. I contacted the Sheriff Department and they told me that they do not own the picture. So, it seems to be that nobody owns the picture rather than Eric Harris himself who is deceased. My question is, can I put that picture under Non free rationale? would that work? Thank you! Nienk (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone owns the copyright, so unless you know the original source which may take some research, the likely answer is no. The article already use two non-free images, so using another will take a lot of justification under WP:NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but my justification is that we would have a picture to illustrate their famous self made videos. If two are allowed, three too, come on man haha, just a little bit of a humor in here isn't bad. Nienk (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

We try to avoid abuse of the fair-use exemption here. And frankly, as the father of a kid in high school, my level of openness to humor about Columbine is pretty damned low. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If I am going to use a screenshot of a particular website(www.pagedon.com) Do I need to contact the website owner for permission? What happens if I can't get ahold of the website owner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodies4uall (talk • contribs) 08:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what you need the image for. If you are writing an article about the website itself and need an illustration to explain how it works, then you can use a screenshot without a permission, under "fair use", and upload it as a "non-free file" (explaining your rationale of what you need it for). However, from your previous contribution [16] I guess that's probably not what you want. If you just want to take some photograph from the website in order to illustrate something else, e.g. a picture of its owner, or some diagram or something, then there's no way you can use it without an explicit permission by the owner placing it under a free license. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The band DieMonsterDie needed help uploading an image onto their page, and gave me the photo that they want up...they're not good at Wikipedia, which is why I'm doing it. I'm wondering how I should go about uploading it so that it will be legal and won't be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpsilonX2008 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You uploaded File:DieMonsterDie Live2011.jpeg and claimed it as a non-free image. This will not work because under WP:NFCC we do not accept images that are replaceable by a free image. You have two possibilities, either take a photo and release it under a free licence, or get the copyright owner of that image to release it freely. They can do that by emailing their permission to our OTRS team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Clearly you have confirmed the article has been edited by people with a conflict of interest, Shadow13windhawk and Zerodelorean, both members of the band, which means they likely will not edit with a Neutral point of view as is required for an encyclopaedia. ww2censor (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What is requirement of sourcing performed by uploader? Usually it is "from Worldwind" without specification of location and layer. Is it enough? Examples: File:Bolte Bridge GIF Aerial.gif and File:Worldwind - Aus-ACT-Canberra.JPG Bulwersator (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say, if it is possible for another user to reproduce the image from the location and layer but it wouldn't be without the location and layer, then it is unsourced. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We own a translation company (http://ww.voxtranslations.com). Now, once in a blue moon one of our translation clients decides not to pay at all for our hard work. Since getting our payment is contingent to his/her approval and good faith, we provide ample opportunities to work out any differences. However, some clients just cannot or do not want to pay. Since the non-paid translation was made by our company with the prior, express authorization of the owner of the copyrights on the original document, are we entitled to the copyrights on the respective translations? Likewise, what would the situation if a client pays only a portion of the price, and we are still expecting and demanding full payment? Would we be in violation of your policies on this respect if we publish the contents a non-paid or partially-paid translation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddie DelMar (talk • contribs) 01:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Eddie, we answer questions about media copyright on wikipedia here and cannot offer you any legal advise. You should consult an intellectual property lawyer for such a specialised question as there are lots of situations you would need to clarify, such as your contract terms, what country you are in, etc. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm wondering if this svg file license information is correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:STUN_Algorithm3.svg

I use inkscape to open the svg and the metadata shows that it is CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0

As in the file: <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/" />

Can someone help me to confirm this?

Many Thanks, Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulliu (talk • contribs) 07:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears to have been set that way in error by the author. The uploader, who is the creator of this work, clearly stated upon upload that it was licensed as GFDL/CC-BY-SA-2.5. The subsequent statement of a freer license takes precedence over the former statement of a restrictive license. In fact, if you wanted to, you'd be fine to fix that part of the metadata and reupload the file. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 09:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

For godsakes, that is a picture I personally took of a public artwork, and as such falls under *any* meaningful definition of a derived work. The copyright is mine to give away under Creative Commons. This is copyright paranoia run amok! Peter G Werner (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you are significantly copying the 2 dimensional mural it too has copyright, which you are not in a position to give away so freely. Presumably copyright held by Ruby Rose Neri. A Fair use rationale at least would be required, but you are using it to illustrate the artist rather than her work. And this kind of use is replaceable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• File:Bit Magazine (First and Last Issue).jpg
• File:Ultrasoft - Video Game Covers Example.jpg‎

I see two issues with these images and would request some feedback. The uploader has created a collage (derivative work) of images, claiming to own the copyright, but no evidence is provided. Then a claim of fair use of cover art is made. It is my understanding that cover art may only be used to visually identify an item for which critical commentary has been offered. The images are of magazine covers and video game covers, but used in an article about an organization (see Ultrasoft), which provides no critical commentary of the magazine or videos. Use within an article where critical commentary is not offered is not an appropriate rationale for fair use. I understand that it would be appropriate if the images were used in articles about the subject (offering critical commentary) in the specific images claiming fair use, but this is not the case here. Feedback is appreciated. Thanks, Cindy(talk to me) 12:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither of these cover art images passes all 10 of our fair-use criteria as they are not being used in an article about the magazine shown and even if there was some critical commentary it would be difficult to justify their use in the organisation's article. They should be put up for deletion under WP:CSD F7 and not a "no permission" but as you say the uploader cannot properly claim to own the copyright. ww2censor (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I had actually put them up for deletion under the F7 CSD, but it was declined, implying I was confused and should seek guidance here. At this point, yes, I'm confused. In my opinion, they clearly fail fair use. Suggestions? Cindy(talk to me) 14:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the decline on CSD is right because there's a slim chance that these files could be used right, but realistically, they do fail more subjective parts of NFCC and are irrepairable. You'll want to put these to WP:FFD for deletion. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I appreciate the feedback. Sending to FFD for more input. Cindy(talk to me) 14:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There are currently many articles in the following Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures which have "fair use claim" illustrations. While each image probably has an appropriate FU rational on its page, the net effect is that dozens of images from the early editions of Monster Manual and Fiend Folio (practically every creature description listed and pictured in each of the books) and perhaps some other game sourcebooks has been included somewhere in Wikipedia. Does that end up being a violation of "minimal use" and potentially the commercial application if the original publisher decided to do a Webpage version of the books? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It can still be fair use. After all things like paintings have the whole thing copied at low resolution on the article about the painting. The idea is that the resolution should be low so that a paid use could still have an advantage over the fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of paintings, we recently reviewed the totality of paintings by Andrew Wyeth in use on (English) Wikipedia pages, and (slightly oversimplifying)concluded that the use of five paintings in eight articles was overuse, and cut it back to two pictures in five articles. That sounds like a more apt comparison to the question.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

the Wyeth discussion was the one that made me wonder. If we cannot use 5, how do we justify using dozens? -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Using a whole lot of them in one article id dubious. But one per article should be OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

at the Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Images_of_Andrew_Wyeth_Paintings discussions it was decided to limit to 5 within all of English Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Using the same file on lots of pages is merely indicative of overuse, because it is normally impossible for a single to contribute irreplaceably on multiple pages. These are similar (rather than the same) files, so there are two separate arguments. The first is whether any given file is overused - and having lots of them in a single article is a sure-fire overuse. But we also had the argument that all these small uses of different images ended up as a violation of the book, even if they were used on different pages. We've never really got to the bottom of that argument - precisely because each file might be used correctly. For the time being, common sense appears to be the name of the game and images from the books probably do not undermine the sale of said book, at NFCC resolutions etc, no matter how many of them we use. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that someone has created individual articles for each creature. I am not sure if all creatures really are notable... --Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a position that other people have held as well, but many claim that the articles are appropriate. There is in fact currently an active discussion about that: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adherer, which may end up making the question moot. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't know about that discussion, so instead I ended up starting a different one for one of the other articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The file is currently featured on media outlet per a recent death, hence the upload (yesterday) seems dubious as a "free image". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

There appears to be a long-standing ORTS ticket from Bollywood Hungama (from 2008) that puts any images on that site into a CC-BY-3.0 license, per Commons:Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama (with specific requirements on where the photo was taken). This seems to fit that, and there was a commons admin that has reviewed the image and marked it ok, so this is more than likely a safe free image. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Only issue is, im not sure if it even belongs to them. Apparently they seem to have taken it off other media [17]Lihaas (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me like the BollywoodHungama publication was earlier. On their site, it's shown in the context of a series of photographs of the event where it was taken, an award party in 2011. The other site you link to shows it in the context of a news report about his hospitalization in 2012. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Bikeshedding, but ...

Wouldn't Elías García Martínez be no longer eligible as a copyright owner? Would it either be copyrighted Cecilia Giménez (or whoever asked her to "restore" the painting), or not copyrighted? Andrew Grimm (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not an easy question given the mess of the situation. I would argue that Gimenez' version is a derivative work ( a very bad one, but a derivative nevertheless) of Martinez' so Martinez would still hold the copyright. This is all compounded by the fact Spain does have open freedom of panaroma laws so as long as the fresco was in a public area, photography of it would be free and the copyright nature of the issues would be nullified. (Note, the photographer would have to be the one to license the image freely, so, I'm guessing, that we don't have a free copy of the original Martinez work before the botch, and suspect the botched one is coming from news sources, making them non-free. Arguably, we should be able to get a free photo of the Gimenez version but would still be relying on a non-free for the former. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

On Wookieepedia, they declare that this image is GFDL/CC-BY-SA, but the page here tags it as "non-free". I'm guessing this is because of the non-free source and have added this information. What is the correct tag for when the image itself is free but derived from a non-free image? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no way that can be a free image with the copyrighted Death Star in it, regardless of what Wookiepedia says. It's non-free here. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well we could just get permission from LUCASARTS/LUCASFILM/whatever. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Are pictures from the 1904 St. Louis World Fair no longer copyrighted, due to the fact it's been over 100 years?

Thanks. --Activism1234 01:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I should probably clarify the image I'm looking to upload of the fair is from this website. The images there are from 1904. --Activism1234 21:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the year of publication - just because the fair was held in 1904 doesn't mean the photos were published then. If they were published before 1923, they should be in the public domain; otherwise, they *may* still be under some copyright, but the question is what information you can find about them to determine how that works. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Is File:Sony_Ericsson_Xperia_Ray_Status.jpg ok for the article of the similar name in this state or do i have to 100% black the screen? I'm unsure if this one's ok since it contains no personal information and shows very little. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You probably should blank the screen. The icons at the top of the screen may be considered part of the user interface and would be a problem. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there someone who knows for sure? Just by looking at Android version history there's about 12 images and none of them are blacked.

Android specifically is open source so hopefully someone knows? Here's a few examples:

• File:T-Mobile G1 launch event 2.jpg
• File:Android home.png
• File:Android1.6.png
• File:Motorola-milestone-wikipedia.jpg
• File:Nexus One.png
• File:Nexus S.png
• File:Galaxy Nexus smartphone.jpg
• File:Android 4.1 Jellybean.png

Thanks and have a nice day/evening ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 23:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Android is available under the Apache License 2.0, a free license. You shouldn't worry about it. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Are these images needed or not needed? --George Ho (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate. We already have non-frees of the actors in-character, and the first one certainly adds nothing; the latter is not a scene of critical commentary. Both should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What if I can replace them with free images of portrayers? --George Ho (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You could, but here's a case where you already have non-frees that look like their actors so do you really need further illustration? --MASEM (t) 02:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If I need a further illustration, then a free image is all right, correct? I mean, a free image may be needed, so a reader does not have to browse through another article to see what a portrayer looks like. If non-free, then... an image may fail NFCC, even if "irreplaceable". --George Ho (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing copyright-wise blocking you from using free images. I only suggest to consider if its really needed to see the actors like that. That said, I see what the Frasier article replacement is, and I think that's good, actually. --MASEM (t) 04:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Half Farthing coin.jpg is unfree as coin design is copyrighted. On the other hand the photo is also copyrighted, but there is OTRS ticket confirming that it is released under free licence (what does not remove original copyright).

As result unfree file sits in Category:All free media - is it possible to stop this? Bulwersator (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The coin is from 1844. As such, it is in the public domain as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Considering that it is from 1844, it is most likely also {{PD-old-70}} and it's also {{PD-UKGov}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

While the coin is PD, a photograph of it may not be because of its 3d (even as shallow as it is ) nature. The copyright ORTS is likely an assurance that the photographer has cleared his photo for free use on WP. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, here it was not a problem but there multiple images where fix will not be so easy - for example File:La scienza della laziness (The Science of Laziness) by Frank Stella, 1984, oil, enamel and alkyd paint on canvas, etched magnesium, aluminum and fiberglass, National Gallery of Art (Washington, D. C.).jpg or File:Japanese Crane Monument at the --National Japanese American Memorial-- (Washington, D. C.), a bronze sculpture by --Nina Akamu--.jpg. How I am supposed to fix this? Bulwersator (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there are two copyrights (the copyright of the photo and the copyright of the artwork). I'm not sure how to handle that; it is necessary to list a licence for both copyrights, and if one licence is free and the other one unfree, then the file goes in both categories. However, despite being unfree, the image is shown somewhere on Category:All free media, creating a WP:NFCC#9 violation, so it is undesirable to have the image in the free category (unless we want a "NOGALLERY" there). There is a {{Non-free Old-70}} template to prevent {{PD-old-70}} files from going into the "free" category and I suppose that we could create similar "Non-free PD-self" and "Non-free GFDL" for use with {{Photo of art}}, although it would make things more complex with extra templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably it is the best fix. BTW, this problem affects 3260 files - see http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?depth=1000&categories=All+free+media%0D%0AAll+non-free+media&ns%5B6%5D=1&ext_image_data=1&doit=1 (152 seconds search) Bulwersator (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved thread to Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(Moved from WP:HD) I'm not sure where to ask this, so this will hopefully be a good first place to go to. There are a couple of music related articles where it might be beneficial to record a bit of audio and give it a suitable free licence on Commons - I've already had a go at this at Mellotron, Farfisa and Wurlitzer Electric Piano, to name but three. To take this a stage further, it occurs it wouldn't be too much hassle for me to play a bar or two of well known intros for songs (such as Crocodile Rock, Imagine or Bohemian Rhapsody) myself on a piano, and upload the results onto Commons. However, where might we stand on copyright? The recording can be given a free licence (if it's a recording of me playing something), but would not the publishing of the song require mechanical royalties, even for a few bars, and hence be incompatible with our Creative Commons licence? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a good question, but let me recommend that you ask it at WP:MCQ. Users that patrol that noticeboard tend to be better versed in copyright issues at Wikipedia. You may also want to contact User:Moonriddengirl, who is something of a copyright expert here at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 13:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your recording would be a derivative work of the song and thus unfree. It is the same as taking a photo of a recent statue in the United States: the sound recording violates the copyright of the song, and the photo violates the copyright of the statue. For that reason, photos of statues are frequently deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Stefan's got it; unless the original song in the public domain, the cover is a derivative work and thus has copyright elements of the original song. Were you to make a cover of a public domain song, you'd just need to make sure your recording of it is put into an open/free license for commons use. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Does fair use come into play anywhere, or is two bars of a rerecording sufficient to be unacceptable? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure its any recognizable amount that puts it into non-free territory. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• The maximum for fair use for sound recordings (on Wikipedia) is measured by duration and not the number of bars. A 15 minute song is allowed a 30 second clip (30 seconds maximum for recordings on Wikipedia), while a 2 minute song is allowed an 12 second clip (10%, for songs under 5 minutes) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, so - to take a practical example - the initial piano figure on Tubular Bells, which by my calculations comes to 6 seconds of a work approximately 25^1/2 minutes would be covered under fair use for that article? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• With contextual significance (i.e. discussion in the article). Generally the original recording is preferred for FU sounds though (where the original work is still readily available). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I have set up an image that is one of my own on a page, and it has been marked for deletion. I want to use the creative commons license on it, but not sure what I am doing wrong. It is marked for deletion.

File:THINK_global_school_logo.jpg

Lee622 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Lee622

• File:THINK global school logo.jpg is unlikely to be "your picture" as it a logo of school and you are almost certainly not copyright holder. I fixed licence tag and nominated image for deletion. Please link to a webpage with an explicit permission, or send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org (only if you are copyright owner) Bulwersator (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Added {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} since I don't think that it is eligible for copyright in the United States. However, I'm not able to tell what the source country is, and it might be copyrightable in the source country. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Btw, this file looks affected by something like bug 24854. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Can this logo File:Browns 1950 Logo.PNG be used in this article Brownie_(folklore)#Modern_culture? Should I be looking for commentary about the logo or is it always going to fail FU in that text can probably capture the content important to the article? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see its usefulness there; yes, noting that the Browns used the brownie figure as a mascot is a fact that can be noted there, but the logo in this case fails NFCC#8 (that fact is understood without the logo). --MASEM (t) 17:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be an American logo from 1950. Note that every publication containing this logo up until at least 1977 had to carry a copyright notice, or else the logo is in the public domain. For example, the former Apple logo is in the public domain because it was printed ("published") on computers without a copyright notice. Wouldn't most logos appear in at least some publications without a copyright notice? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If it can be proven in the PD, then yes, inclusion is okay, but we need a better assertion than just the off-chance it was initially published without copyright marks. (We should always play on the safe side and presume works are non-free unless positively shown otherwise). --MASEM (t) 17:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded a screenshot of an Android application. I assumed the correct thing to do would be to clearly state that it is a non-free image but acceptable as fair use. Im told I need to write a rationale but Im not sure how to go about doing that. Do I need to re-upload and change template? Or is there somewhere in the image page where I add that? Are there any examples of rationales for screenshots of mobile software? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eno (talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The image page is File:Google Maps 6.9 on Android 4.1.png. You need to edit that page to add a {{non-free use rationale}} template.--ukexpat (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That image is unlikely to be appropriate under the non-free content criteria. Just to show what version 6.9 looks like is not enough to include that image in Google Maps. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded it to keep the article up-to-date and to show the look and feel of the latest version (running under Jelly Bean) - the previous image is old. I also need to update the text to (also out of date). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eno (talk • contribs) 18:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)