Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/December

VHS cover of Give Me a Ring Sometime (Cheers)
I wonder if I can use the VHS cover as an infobox for one episode, like "Mork Goes Erk". --George Ho (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because it contributes nothing substantial to the reader's understanding of the episode. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Website License not found
I cannot find any licenses of this government websites

http://khammam.nic.in/

http://adilabad.nic.in/

which i used on the Articles Bayyaram,Adilabad district respectively. Images can be found here and  We cannot use Government website?Please guide me solution. And guide me to how to deal with similar pages. Thanking you Myselfsridharan (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No license means that it is illegal to use, sorry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Panorama of freedom in Russia - help needed
Hello,

I would like to know whether the images at List of churches in Moscow are copyright infringements. And does the list meet point 5? Regards. --Tomcat (7) 11:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Kazan Cathedral in Red Square.jpg is not free and should be deleted. I'm not sure on the others.  Russian copyright ends 70 years after the death of the creator so we'd need to find out when the architects died. Ryan Vesey 12:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if more editors were to comment on this, whether or not they agree with Ryan Vesey.  Good raise  18:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. If an external reuser wants to reuse and publish some of those photos in Belgium or in Russia or in Kyrgyzstan, then that person would have to verify the status of the building. But that has no practical effect on Wikipedia. Of course, it is always useful to have a description of the pictured objects that is as good as possible and it may also make the task of the eventual reusers in some countries easier, but it's not an obligation on Wikipedia. The photos are free in the United States and as such they are within the policy of Wikipedia. Looking at the first FL discussion, I see that you did say that the files are accepted per the policy of Wikipedia. I don't know what problem you see with them, then. You seem to be saying that those photos should not be displayed on Wikipedia just because they are hosted on Commons instead of being hosted on Wikipedia. I don't think that's a problem. The practices on Commons about that type of files are not consensual and a frequent topic of discussion. But as long as the files actually are on Commmons and they are within the policy of Wikipedia, displaying them on Wikipedia should not be a problem. If the concern is that they might eventually be deleted from Commons because of different practices there, then the preventive solution would be to copy them to Wikipedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * About your first question, no they are not copyright infringements. I looked only a a few of them but those I looked all seemed to have valid licenses. And as they are photos of buildings, the pictured objects are not a concern. If you're proposing the article for FL, you may want to verify the source of each file and see if you have a reason to doubt the license. I see in the FL discussion that you linked to this comment by Moonriddengirl. I fully agree with her comment, which summarizes the situation very well: I can't see why the use of images that are within Wikipedia policy would bar a list from being featured. The images are free and fine here. If for some reason you think that some of those files might be in danger of being deleted from Commons due to different practices there, just copy those images to Wikipedia and add the tags FoP-US and Keep local (or if you prefer FoP-USonly, which is FoP-US combined with Do not move to Commons, but it may look strange with the copy of a file that is actually on Commons). Last summer, some users tried to propose that the policy of Wikipedia be changed to reject some images that could not be published in some countries other than the US, but that change was not supported and the policy remains that the images are only required to be free in the US. See the conclusion of RFC: Does US FoP apply to foreign works?. By the way, there does not seem to be a reason to hide some of those free photos. About your second question, criteria of style for FL are something that should be discussed on the FL pages. If you were thinking specifically about the last sentence of point 5b about non-free media, it's not relevant, as the photos in this list are free media. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally, I try to err on the side of caution. While I'd prefer to see the files made compliant with both Wikipedia and Commons policy or having them copied to Wikipedia, I'd be alright with the current situation if it is the consensus view that we shouldn't worry about what may or may not end up being deleted on Commons. Thanks for your elaborate reply, Asclepias.  Good raise  23:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I am not adressing the question of the style criteria required for FL. I assume that if the original poster posted a question here, it was about the copyright aspect. On the copyright aspect, I think the RFC discussion linked above does restate the consensus that we shouldn't worry. However, if there are style criteria for FL, to the effect that FLs should not include material from Commons that may perhaps be deleted there, that could be a cause of worry for the aesthetic aspect of the list. The worry would not be about the copyright aspect, but maybe along the lines that it would be unfortunate to see images getting removed and changing the looks of the list. I am not familiar at all with FL discussions and style criteria, so you are better placed to judge that aspect of the question. If it is a concern, I think the solution could be to upload copies of the files in question to Wikipedia, to be safe, as suggested above. Maybe that's what you had been suggesting. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if we indeed do not care about what happens at Commons, then the copyright question is settled as far as I'm concerned. If it weren't, I'd ask how old a building in Russia needs to be before it can be presumed to be out of copyright. As for the style question, the FL crowd may want to consider hardening the criteria a bit. After all, some (potential) FLs, like this one, include a great many pictures. It could be quite embarrassing for the project if an example of its "very best work" was suddenly populated by redlinked files. But that's off topic here. Thanks again.  Good raise  13:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

UK Copyright regarding Channel 4
Looking at the dyk queue, I came across Big 4 (sculpture), which is essentially a 3D version of Channel 4's logo. The thing I find I curious is that File:Channel 4 New Logo.svg is copyrighted, whereas every image of the sculpture is tagged as free when the sculpture has arguably more creativity. Where is the disconnect? Chris857 (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is because under British law there is a Freedom of Panorama exception for many 3D works including sculptures which does not apply to 2D graphic works. Check out this commons section for a more complete description of the differences. ww2censor (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting... Well, the images are okay then. Chris857 (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

File:55 Chevy BelAir.jpg
This image is listed as PD pre-1978; however, there's no evidence included to verify that it was never copyrighted and no link to the source. It seems like an image that was very likely to be copyrighted. Does anyone know how to verify the information? Ryan Vesey 22:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you list it as PUF? --George Ho (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Ryan Vesey 23:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Not public domain.
marked as public domain on wiki, source is: http://plant-pictures.de/gallery/framgall.htm Quote from there.: Each image is copyrighted by the respective author. Each commercial use of pictures is prohibited... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BubikolRamios (talk • contribs) 07:21, 3 December 2012‎ (UTC)
 * File:Hyoscyamus niger - Köhler–s Medizinal-Pflanzen-073.jpg is ultimately from Köhler's Medicinal Plants, which was published in 1887, and so is in the public domain. The caption at http://pharm1.pharmazie.uni-greifswald.de/allgemei/koehler/koeh-073.jpg says, “Image processing by Thomas Schoepke”. I doubt the image processing has enough originality to create a new copyright. —teb728 t c 09:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

File:LACMA.jpg
Should this photo be in Wikipedia without Company's permission under terms? --George Ho (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it fails WP:NFCC for the use in no way increases reader understanding of the statement in the article, "Kubrick's widow, Christiane, appeared at the pre-gala press review." —teb728 t c 07:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

work for hire
In uploading a work for hire, does one identify the work as one's own or a work by somebody else? None of the language seems quite right but my gut tells me the work is the buyer's "own" work if it is a work for hire--as if he wrote/drew/photographed it himself. Correct?

Relatedly, if the *owner* uploads under his user ID, is that all you need? Or is any further communication about permission needed?

Thanks, Valuenyc (Is the user ID signature enough?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valuenyc (talk • contribs) 16:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The important thing to determine is who is the copyright holder of the image. That may be photographer, or the case of work for hire could the the person paying for the image, however you need to know whether that "work for hire" also included the copyright as well as supplying images. In some instance the photographer may have retained the copyright though the owner, should really be called the possessor, may also be the copyright holder but possession alone does not necessarily confer any rights on the possessor. The copyright must have been transferred. If the "Owner" uploads the image here it may be questioned, especially if the image is to be found on the internet and not clearly noted to be freely licenced or appear to be copyright to someone else, such as the photographer.


 * It would appear that you may be referring to the image File:Joseph Rescigno.jpg that use deleted twice and one of those deletion took place because the image was noted to be copyright per Possibly unfree files/2011 December 9. Unless that has changed I doubt you will be able to use the image.


 * You certainly do not identify other people's work as you own, no matter where it came from and the buyer of the work is still not the author of the work, who should be identified if known. The best thing to do is contact the person who appears to be the copyright holder, enquire if they own the copyright and if they agree to licence it freely, have them verify that permission by emailing our OTRS Team who will deal with the matter appropriately. ww2censor (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

OK To Use "Modified" NASA Image on Wikipedia?
HELP - Is it OK to use a "Modified" NASA image on Wikipedia? - the "Modified" NASA image is at => http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/Waypoints_Map-Grotzinger-790.jpg (WebPage => http://www.enterprisemission.com/marsapartments.html) - the "Original" NASA image is at => http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16577 (and on Wikipedia at => http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PIA16577-MarsCuriosityRover-TravelMap-20121130.jpg) - Thank you in advance for your reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While the NASA picture is necessarily free, it allows anyone to modify it and create a new copyrightable work. In this case, I think the modifications made are sufficiently original and as there's no clear statement that the modified image is in the public domain or has a CC-BY license, we would consider it non-free. However, the subjective nature of my assessment of the additions being original enough is a question for others to consider.  If just brief text blocks were added, I would say there's no creativity in that, and that would have been still under the same free NASA license.
 * Now, if the text and other figured being added are purely factual in nature (I can't easily tell), then it would be possible for you to recreate something similar to the modified image using those facts. For example, if this were a road map and the change made was to label selected cities on that path (factual), you could do the same and release you creation as a free work atop a free work. But if that information has any type of creativity in it, then you can't easily do that. --M ASEM  (t) 17:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you *very much* for your comments - some of the text added to the image seems familiar (& factual) to me; some, less so - nonetheless, seems best not to upload this particular image (due to possible copyright issues) - I'm aware that my own similar modification may be ok - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Waheed Murad
Before I get into an edit war, please could someone check the recent history of this article and talk page. Thanks. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Image Use
This an image I would like to a wiki page explaining Low-threshold spikes that I am updating for my neuroscience class. http://physrev.physiology.org/content/83/1/117/F2.medium.gif I have cropped it to just display the part A of the figure. Do I have the right to use this image and what should I copyright this as? Najabouarraj (talk)
 * It depends on who created the figure and what permission if any they gave to reuse it. Since you link just to the gif rather than the page where it is used, we can't tell. —teb728 t c 08:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Logo_de_la_Corte_Interamericana_de_Derechos_Humanos.jpg
Am I right in thinking the map pushes this beyond pd-textlogo? Any chance that this logo (of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights) is free for any other reason? --j⚛e deckertalk 04:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This definitely meets the threshold of originality. The map is far more than "simple geometric shapes."  As far as it being free otherwise, I don't know.  However, the organization's website does say "Todos los Derechos Reservados." I am going to remove the PD tag.  -Seidenstud (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've also pulled it from Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, I'd added it there and then thought better of it. I could see a FUR happening for an article on the Court itself (it's used that way on ESWIKI), but I doubt it's going to fly on ENWIKI as an infobox logo.  --j⚛e deckertalk 16:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Psyche Revived by Cupid's Kiss, Antonio Canova, 1787-1793.jpg
I'm not sure what the proper combination of licensing tags is here. The statue is probably public domain, but I'm not sure which tag to use. I think the user who uploaded the image would release it under a free license. David 1217  What I've done 04:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The user who uploaded the image has no rights on it and therefore can't release them. If the source information is correct, he copied, from a book, a photograph by Mimmo Jodice. The file does not comply with fair use guidelines. It is uded to illustrate the depicted object and not the work of the photographer Jodice. Also the rationale is bogus when it says that no other depiction of the object could be created. See Commons:Category:Psyche revived by the kiss of Love (Louvre). -- Asclepias (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay—I thought the uploader took the photo. I should have looked more carefully. In any case, I agree with the F7 tag. David  1217  What I've done 22:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

File:This Christmas Donny Hathaway vinyl.jpg
I've uploaded this image. Is it free or non-free? --George Ho (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say this is non free as there is just too much there to say it is simple. I cannot see a copyright notice, but there is a good chance there was a copyright notice on the sleeve or something like that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Indian army website
Can anyone suggest the appropriate licence tag for content from the Indian Army website http://www.indianarmy.gov.in/ All content except where specifically identified is free for reproduction with attribution. See http://www.indianarmy.gov.in/Site/FormTemplete/frmTempSimple.aspx?MnId=BF6Fm9R+R9nZxySymvyjFQ==&ParentID=9re5J8qGRW6zpKvYrOtGzA== for the wording on the website. I was thinking PD-because but if there is anything better out there. NtheP (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look free enough to me because the permission doesn't include a right to make derivative works; indeed it requires accurate reproduction. —teb728 t c 07:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Suits me, there's a few uploads claiming pd which might be best converted to fair use where applicable or deleted. NtheP (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

How to put a copyright tag?
I hav recieved a notification from one of your bots to provide the copyright tag to one of the images I uploaded. The Image I have uploaded is directly from the original website of the product for which I have created the page. The page is this. So please tell me what all needs to be done specifically, I will look forward to do it and legitimize the image that I have uploaded. Avinashkapoor011 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume you are talking about File:CricketCaptain2012-Box-2D.jpg. If you are the copyright holder, you can file evidence of permission using the suggested language and instructions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries


 * I see you have added a pd license; if that is what you want, you'll have to modify the wording, or you can accept the cc-by-sa-3.0 license, and whoever process the permission at OTRS will change the license.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, this image should be non-free because... we can't assume that you are the owner of this image. In fact, the company owns this image because it is the work for hire obviously. We need the company's permission; otherwise, it's non-free. I've changed the rationale for you. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Public domain of works created by the government of Puerto Rico
We have an ongoing discussion at several talk pages regarding the claim that works created by the government of Puerto Rico are in public domain. This claim is considered self-evident in Puerto Rico but IANAL and there has never been a case in court about copyright infringement on a work created by the government. Our problem is that I can't find the laws or codes that state that works created by the government are in public domain. I need help figuring this out. In specific, we need to find:


 * that pictures of Senators as provided by the Senate of Puerto Rico are in public domain,
 * that pictures of Representatives as provided by the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico are in public domain,
 * that emblems and logos of Puerto Rico government agencies are in public domain, and
 * that photos provided by government agencies are in public domain.

All the documents that I have been able to find are in Spanish, including:


 * a statement from the Puerto Rico Statistics Institute saying that,
 * Information held by the State is public and must be accessible to the general public.


 * a statement from the Department of State of Puerto Rico saying that,
 * Works created to advertise or promote goods or services cannot be registered [for copyright], nor those created by the officials of the Commonwealth in the performance of their duties, or compilations, anthologies or compilations of fragments of works by other authors.


 * LPRA 31 1401e establishing that,
 * Works created for the purpose of advertising entities or promoting goods or services shall not enjoy protection by copyright.


 * LPRA 31 1401e establishing a little bit further that,
 * As long as the author's name is stated, neither will the fragmentation of a work for didactic or informative purposes enjoy this protection.

The articles in question are:
 * Jaime Perelló which included the portrait provided by the 28th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, and
 * Secretary of State of Puerto Rico which included the portrait of the current Secretary as provided by the Department of State of Puerto Rico.

IANAL and there's a lot of WP:LAWYERING and WP:BUREAUCRACY going around so it's difficult for me to improve Wikipedia simply because I'm not well versed in civil law.

Can any of you help us prove or disprove this claim? For example, we have PD-PRGov-OfficialPortraits.

&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My best guess is that works of the government of Puerto Rico are not generally PD. Works of most governments are not PD. And if works of the government of Puerto Rico were PD, almost certainly someone would have created a Template:PD-PRGov. The fact that there is a Template:PD-PRGov-OfficialPortraits is also a bad sign, for if all works were PD, the OfficialPortraits template would be redundant. If you want to be sure though, contact the Secretary of State of Puerto Rico, whose advice was used for the OfficialPortraits template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEB728 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 2 December 2012 UTC


 * You are apparently right. The official website of the Puerto Rican goverment states that they hold and retain the intellectual rights of all content on their website. The English version of the site doesn't seem to work but their terms of use in Spanish are obvious enough . De728631 (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah but that's the problem. We have conflicting information coming from the websites, from public servants, from government agencies, and the general public (see the references provided above). Like I said public domain of such content is self-evident in Puerto Rico, just because a website puts a text on its page it doesn't mean that it's final. We need to find the law that either proves or disproves our claim rather than trusting a website that was created by who knows who. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To add one more point of confusion, as best I can tell, Puerto Rico is treated as a state for US copyright purposes, so even if there is no copyright under Puerto Rico law, there may be one under federal law. While Puerto Rico could place its own works in the public domain under federal law, it probably can't do that for other works. Then is that statement a limitation on local law, or is it an attempt to release the content under all laws? Finally, did the author of the web content qualify as "officials of the Commonwealth"? Monty  845  19:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The federal non-copyright statute doesn't apply to Puerto Rico (ie: they can do whatever they want&mdash;see Copyright status of work by the U.S. government). The problem is that we have a statement from the Secretary of State of Puerto Rico saying:
 * These images were commissioned and paid for by the Government, for public use, with public funds, so they may be reproduced freely. No one has any rights over such images, having sold the images and rights appurtenant to their work to the people of Puerto Rico.
 * Which can be interpreted as saying that images commissioned and paid for by the government of Puerto Rico with public funds and for public use may be reproduced freely. You can see the conversation at Public domain status of official government works.
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For those familiarized with civil law, Puerto Rico defines goods, properties, public domain, and public use on 31 LPRA Part I. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Some years ago, I asked, then President of the Puerto Rican Senate and now Lieutenant Governor of Puerto Rico, the Honorable Kenneth McClintock the same question that is being asked and discussed here. I asked him because he has a doctorate in International Law and a high government official in Puerto Rico and therefore, he should know. He stated the following:


 * The portraits of Governors, First Ladies, Senate Presidents, House Speakers and Military heroes in the Capital Building of Puerto Rico, are considered to be in the public domain. These paintings were commissioned and paid for by the Government, for public use, with public funds, so they may be reproduced freely. No artist has any rights over such portraits, having sold the portraits and rights appurtenant to their work to the people of Puerto Rico.


 * As a representative of the government of Puerto Rico, he sent his statement to OTRS. OTRS granted the Government of Puerto Rico a ticket number to this regard which includes the statement made: . I have to add that with the current change of government and the Holiday season in Puerto Rico, it would be a little difficult to get in touch with any government official this moment. I hope that this helps. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * McClintock is a lawyer but not a copyright expert. It looks to me like he is using the term “public domain” incorrectly. McClintock was asked if payment would be required for the use of images. He replied that they were being used without payment in government buildings; that the government does not claim payment for their reproduction and use; and that the artists have no rights over the portraits, having sold them to the people. His argument said nothing about whether the government holds copyright. A real public domain argument would have said instead that Puerto Rican laws (and/or court decisions) do not allow such works to be copyrighted. Although he uses the term “public domain,” that term does not make sense in the context of his whole statement; what he probably meant is that the artists had granted use licenses for the portraits. In any case we should not be relying on his statement until we consult with a copyright expert, asking specifically whether the government holds copyright (as opposed to whether royalties are required). —teb728 t c 09:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Like all other copyright holders, the government of Puerto Rico can disclaim copyright on some of its works while retaining it on others. Two US states that have done this via OTRS are Pennsylvania and Kansas; lots of photos of historic Pennsylvania bridges, such as File:Bridge in Athens Township.jpg and File:Market Street Bridge, Wilkes-Barre.jpg, are in the public domain, while Kansas released into the public domain a detailed statewide road map that forms the basis for maps used on our Kansas county articles.  No comment on whether this specific situation should be considered a valid PD release.  Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I expect that McClintock should not be doubted. As a lawyer and official I preseme he fully understood the copyright law and did exactly what was necessary, as an authorized Puerto Rico official, to put those pics into public domain.


 * For what it's worth, in 2010 now-retired editor Quazgaa secured Puerto Rico OTRS granting public domain status for about 25 photos of historic churches taken by private photographers but under contract to a Puerto Rico "state" government agency, the Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office (PR SHPO). (Covered at User Quazgaa's talk page, in discussion sections "copyright violation for 1 or more NRHP photos" and "Good news", and finally ended in Possibly unfree files/2010 June 24.  Editor Tony the Marine helped in that and also referred to McClintock then.  Also, before that I and another editor secured PR SHPO release of pics for Casa Paoli article, taken by a PR SHPO employee.  In every case, it seems PR government staff are believing pics are already in the public domain and/or are jumping through hoops to put them there (possibly redundantly).  There is no case of PR protesting about Commons / Wikipedia use of photos.  So, I think treatment of any potential, temporary technical gap should be quite lenient, and I would be optimistic that PR officials would again cooperate to re-establish (perhaps redundantly) more groups of photos. -- do  ncr  am  03:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions on copyright status
I would like to ask three questions. One: I am inquiring on File:Rodale logo.gif. Why was it removed from the article Rodale, Inc.? I placed a proper rationale for it. Per page history, I think the user that removed it is a vandal and may even be a sock.

Two: I would like to report two redundant files: File:CTV logo.svg and File:CTV.svg. The two have the same content. However, the licence of the first is identified as "copyright" while the second states "public domain; not original". Which one is right?

Three: Is File:CTV flat logo.svg suitable for Commons?

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234)  C 21:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * well the File:CTV logo.svg is better as it does not have the bottom of the circle chopped off. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But what about the copyright status AND THE LOGO REDUNDANCY? Is the file too simple for copyright? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Megaphone-Vector.svg C 17:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For File:Rodale logo.gif the remover Jeffipman is a sock of Jlightspeed888 and they are in the category of WP:SPA. However not a vandal as such as they are justifying the action of removing the logo with this edit summary "upload violates copyright and is not a current company logo". Perhaps they do not understand fair use.  You could check to see if there is a new logo though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * These images are more than just simple shapes; there's originality in the coloring patterns of the shapes, so the image shouldn't be marked as being PD and it shouldn't be on Commons at all. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Image of Dr Bob Smith of Alcoholics Anonymous
I noticed that the article about Bob Smith (doctor) aka "Dr Bob" of Alcoholics Anonymous has no image. I would like to add an image to the article. Obviously no new image can be created (Dr. Bob dies in 1950). I would like to use an image I found on the Internet. Here are several samples of the one I want to use: /, /. The image is used in many places on the Internet and in much literature and paraphernalia of Alcoholics Anonymous. I would like to use the pd-us-not-renewed because it was published earlier then 1964 and the copyright nor removed.

Template:PD-US-not renewed

So the questions I have are is that image okay for Wikipedia and (if it is) what copyright tag should I use? What should I use for the date and owner of the copyright?

Thanks, meshach (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this photo is not yet proven to be out of copyright, as there is not yet proof of publication from the 1950s or before. I'll upload it soon as non-free. If you can find a photo of him on eBay, don't conclude it quickly as free from copyright. Instead, find copyright records of it. --George Ho (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Doctor Bob Alcoholics Anonymous.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for the clarification and for uploading the file. meshach (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Uploading under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike CC
Hi,

I created a modernized version of an image from the public domain (it was created for a book published in 1920: here's the link). The image modifications are enough to classify it as a derivative work. I want to upload it to Wikipedia, but I don't want it to be available for commercial use under any conditions – non-commercial is fine (or anything for a nonprofit organization). Is this possible? Prof. Squirrel (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content so we do not accept permission that restricts the reusability of content. If an article used an image with a non-commercial restriction, it would make it difficult for commercial mirrors to reuse the article. If you don’t want to free license your modified version, think about uploading the original version. —teb728 t c 20:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Uploading Images
Hello. I am attempting to upload images of a product. Specifically they are images of firearms such as the Ruger SR-556. I have received e-mail permission from the Sturm, Ruger & Co. website to use their images. I thought I had cited my images correctly by they were deleted. Can anyone help steer me in the proper direction? --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Answered on my talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of snapshot of photograph?
I would like to post on the Wikipedia Franks Casket page a snapshot I took (with the permission of the curators and no strings attached) of the Bargello Museum's file photograph of one of their artifacts. I am already using it on a webpage I wrote. The photo's URL is http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/FranksCasket/barg6.jpg. My snapshot is not as clear as the file photograph -- and has some parallax distortion -- and so does not impair the value of the original file photograph, IMHO. The artifact itself is on display at the back of a shelf, and hence cannot be photographed directly.

Would posting this on Wikipedia pose a copyright violation? Or should I just go ahead and see if they complain? HuMcCulloch (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a derivative work, and thus subject to all the usual rules, same as if you'd copied the original photo straight to here. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  02:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll try asking the museum for permission to publish my photo of their photo on Wikipedia. Might work.  HuMcCulloch (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Permission to use only on Wikipedia is not sufficient, it has to be permission for all purposes.--ukexpat (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Image Use
I just wanted to upload following images from flickr.com: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Can I upload these images? They seem to be free-licensed.

And what about those ones: 1, 2.--Alpargu (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The first two from flickr are OK, they are cc-by, but the next 4 are not suitable, they have the non commercial requirement - the symbol with the dollar crossed off. Wikipedia requires allowing commercial use. The image shack ones have no statement I can see that they are free, so we can't use them here. See if you can contact the photographer and ask for a CC-BY license to be granted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

possible copyvio File:Church_of_Jal-crop.jpg
Had a simple question, I was checking out a user's images (File:Church_of_Jal-crop.jpg), one of them seems to have been uploaded and claimed as his own. On further examination the image was found at http://www.panoramio.com/photo/63315311 and was actually taken by another person but is claimed as Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported. Does this file have to be deleted or can the copyright tag simply be changed? Thanks for your help in advanced! Gsingh (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reporting this. Since the Panoramio license is "no-derivatives", it doesn't count as a free license for us, so it will have to be deleted. The uploader was using fake Flickr uploads on their own Flickr account to pass off the image as their own ("Flickr-washing"). I'm now going through the rest of their uploads on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: blocked local en-wp account; reported to Commons admins to have all remaining uploads nuked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was doing each picture individually so it was taking a long time. Gsingh (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

File:BayofPigs.jpg
File:BayofPigs.jpg is marked as Public Domain - but there's a chunk of a web address in the top-right corner - my suspicious mind, I suppose, but what if this has been ripped off "www.demis.n...." wherever that is? Thanks for the assistance. OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's probably www.demis.nl where there are several mapping applications available. NtheP (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See also Commons:Template talk:PD-Demis, if it helps decide what can or cannot be reused from that website. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Airbus_A350_prototype_roll_out.jpg
Hello,

I uploaded this picture to illustrate the Airbus A350 article : it's the from the first pictures of the nearly complete aircraft from its 4th December roll out. Only Airbus can photograph it right now till the public first flight and put it in the press section of their website, and so it should be compatible with the fair use rationale.

for the Low resolution section : I uploaded the original since the high resolution would be unlikely to impact the copyright owners ability to resell or otherwise profit from the work : Airbus isn't selling those and hopes to export them broadly since they put it in their gallery section for download and hopefully for editorial reuse like flightglobal. But there is also a lower 800x555px picture to upload instead if it' necessary.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If File:A350XWB-941 ETIHAD AIRWAYS.png is correctly tagged, it would be a free replacement. —teb728 t c 07:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * File:A350XWB-941 ETIHAD AIRWAYS.png is a drawing, not a real photograph? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the purpose is to show the appearance, a drawing serves the same encyclopedia purpose. —teb728 t c 23:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't copyright a list?
I've read some where that you can't copy right a list of things. So say there was a book called "John Doe's 50 Classic Paintings" that listed 50 paintings and went into detail about their artistic merit, info on the artists' lives and motivations etc. Is it ok to list the 50 paintings on the book's Wikipedia article page? Sun Ladder (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A list with creative input can still be copyrighted (i.e. Rolling Stone's 500 best songs of all time) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. This essay: WP:Copyright in lists has some useful additional information. GermanJoe (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That essay is just what I was looking for. Thanks.Sun Ladder (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

File:BledMuniFlag.gif: fair use?
Hi! I'm not sure that File:BledMuniFlag.gif is appropriately used under the fair use. It is based on a drawing which is public domain in Slovenia. Does it therefore qualify as a PD image or should it be removed from the article as a free alternative could be created based on the referenced page. --Eleassar my talk 14:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can make a copyrighted work of a public domain piece (There is the concern of slavish copies like scanning in documents, where there is the attempt to making as much authenicity of the original work as to be ineligible for new copyright - this is not such a case). Remove, replace with the PD image. --M ASEM (t) 14:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Tagging File:Tom Keene.jpg
Hi, I tried to upload this image which I found on Flickr. It has been released under a creative commons license, so I tried to tag it for that. The bot apparently didn't like the way I tagged it. Can someone please help me tag it properly?TheFreeloader (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why the bot was giving you trouble, the CC license appeared right. I have added a image information template with the details, maybe that will help. Do note that as it is CC-BY, it should ultimately be transferred over to Commons. --M ASEM (t) 01:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

file permission problem with file: Jon cohen (entrepreneur) jpg
Hi there, I uploaded a head shot for Jon Cohen, entrepreneur and it was taken down after a few weeks because "there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license." This photo file was shot by an employee of Jon Cohen (entrepreneur) for specific use as a PR head shot. Jon Cohen has indicated by email that he has the rights to this photo. Can someone help me understand what's needed to get this photo approved? If it's not possible, how do we get a new head shot snapshot approved in its place? Thanks so much for help and guidance!!

CklenfnerCklenfner (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You will likely need to have the copyholder (Jon Cohen if this is the case) to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT to let us know about the consent of rights. You can help them craft the email but they have to be the one to send it. --M ASEM  (t) 17:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

22:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Beelzebubba66 (talk)

Your Biography of Slim Harpo
Your article on blues musician Slim Harpo does not have a photograph of him. I have been trying to submit an image of him that I found as a result of a Google search. This is the second time that I have tried to make an edit of an article. I see that if the only reason I'm looking to be auto-confirmed is to upload this one image of one of my favourite musicians, I will be probably be declined. It's not the only reason.

During my formative years, my favourite toy was a mid 1970s edition of the World Book Encyclopedia. I had the whole set spread out over the entire living room, day after day. I was a very curious child. Anytime I had a question I want answered, I reached for the volume I needed. Voila, I was informed. Had Wikipedia existed when I was a boy, my head would surely have exploded.

Now, here I am, in my mid-40s. I'm presented with the opportunity to contribute to the modern day version of my favourite toy. The problem is, it's proving to be very difficult. Many hoops to jump through. I want to contribute, yet I realize that I am green as grass. A Wiki rookie.

The whole issue of copyright law, I know next to nothing. I want to learn. By trying to submit an image for an artist I am fond of, I feel this could be an excellent exercise to gain some knowledge.

Thank you for your time, Darren Mills aka Beelzebubba66 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beelzebubba66 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all you need to be sure that the image has been released by its author under a free license. I.e. random images one may obtain from a Google search are most likely all copyrighted and non-free. Unless the source page where you got the file explicitely states that the image has been released under a license like Creative Commons (including commercial reuse), we would have to host the image under a fair use rationale. Specifically, this would be a statement how the particular image benefits the educational purpose of the article and helps reader understand the articles text. Since Slim Harpo is dead, we need not consider another requirement that applies only to images of living persons, but fair use may still be a tricky thing.


 * If you could give us a weblink to the original site of the image you've been trying to use, we could determine the copyright status and requirements for uploading it to Wikipedia. On another note, please sign your talk page contributions by typing four tilde characters . This will automatically add your username and a timestamp when you hit the "Save" button. De728631 (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status of works made by Palestinians
Palestine (now recognized as a state by the UN) was not a participant in the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright with the United States. Does that mean that works made by Palestinians (such as this: File:Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades Flag.gif) are public domain in the U.S.? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that to US courts these are works by Israelis. Occasionally we've made the deliberate decision not to follow US law exactly where there are political decisions (over Hezbollah, for example) involved that could change rapidly. Typically they aren't questions that have, or maybe ever will, be answered by courts, and yet we have to put the bar somewhere, I think it would be best to consider them at least under Israeli protection, being cautious. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. So how can their works be protected by Israel? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the British Copyright Act of 1911 is still applicable for the Palestine territories (aka Gaza and West Bank) since it was never substantially changed there since colonial times (see here). I.e. Israeli copyright law does not apply there and Palestine is also not a member of the Berne convention or the UCC. Ergo we have a case of "published in a country with which the United States does not have copyright relations under a treaty", so these works are PD. De728631 (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. Is there a copyright template we can use for this? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A combined PD-US and no commons should do it. De728631 (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How can it possibly be "a country with which the United States does not have copyright relations under a treaty" when the US does not think it's a country? Surely we should be thinking about them as (from the US perspective) stateless citizens. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's officially recognized by the UN as a state. Also, does it matter? Is there any legitimate authority protecting their copyrights?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Since international copyright issues are usually handled between countries, it is not surprising that the model cases in this page are referring to countries. So unless any Palestinian works are individually registered with the US Copyright Office, it appears to me that there is no general copyright protection for them in the US. De728631 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I do feel you're picking and choosing here. Whether a country has legal relations with the US is clearly from a US perspective, so you can't match it with an international definition of "country". The US doesn't recognise Palestine, that much is clear. Whether Palestine has a copyright organisation is arguably not relevant either (only whether it has a copyright regime) but in any case it clearly does. Further, large passages of that report make it clear that, firstly, Palestine discusses intellectual property regimes on the international stage, and, secondly, such protection may come via Israel: "The importance of attracting foreign investment has been a key assumption underlying the Israel-PLO agreements, and this recognition led the Palestinians to undertake to take account of existing registrations of rights under the examination of the Palestinian authorities... the parties are still interested in pursuing through Joint Economic Committee the "mutual recognition and protection" of intellectual property rights. Protection of intellectual property rights is also addressed by the Interim Agreement from the point of view of cooperation in research. Article VI of Annex VI of the Interim Agreement provides for the promotion of cooperation by the two sides "in scientific research and technological development," and dictates that the sides "shall devote special attention to...development of an environment conducive to research, application of new technologies and adequate protection of intellectual property rights for the results of such research."
 * I therefore conclude the situation is not clear and we can't be gung-ho about assuming that copyright protection does not extend to Palestinian works. We should show the usual caution in such areas. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You've got a point there. I have now asked to have a look at this thread. She knows a lot about copyrights and perhaps she could even ask around at the WMF. In related news, there is no special treatment or mentioning of Palestinian works at Commons:Copyright rules by territory which is already quite comprehensive. Anyhow, I think this matter should be resolved and documented for future reference. De728631 (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On her user talk page, Moonriddengirl quoted from C: "Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States". Non-U.S. copyrights says, "it is longstanding Wikipedia policy to respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States. What this means in practice is determined case by case, bearing in mind the goal of being able to freely distribute Wikipedia in the country an incorporated work originates from". With this in mind and given the unclear situation, we should better treat Palestinian works as generally unfree and only use them where we can apply a fair use rationale as has been done with the flag in question. De728631 (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Better safe than sorry I guess (even though I doubt there are serious consequences in this case). -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Cd/dvd covers and book/magazine covers with picture of the artist/author
Hello to everyone. Can I upload in english wikipedia (not wikimedia conmons) covers of cd/dvd cover with a picture of the artist and book/magazine covers with a picture of the author, and use the to their bio articles with fair use lincense? Thank you in advance.Vagrand (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, only if the person is dead; see Hamilton Camp. Otherwise, find that person in-person, like a concert, autograph meeting, etc. Of whom you take a photo? --George Ho (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh wait. Only if that person is retired, and the earliest appearance is most recognizable per WP:NFC. --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a general question. Thank you. Vagrand (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NFC point 1 requires more than that their earlier/retired appearance be most recognizable, it actually requires that their "notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance". For a model or the like this would to be fairly straightforward, but it would be questionable for a musician (without sources discussing their appearance), and almost certainly not the case for authors. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this a Fair use?
in the article Shm-reduplication--Inspector (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say it fails WP:NFCC. If the article needed more examples, more free free examples could be created easily. Having an image doesn't help reader understanding at all. —teb728 t c 03:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Image from USHMM
G'day, Could someone give me some guidance on the appropriate copyright tag and licensing for this image ? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhh...it says PD under the image. And it says it's made in what's today Bosnia. So I guess you use this: PD-BH-exempt. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * At Commons this has also been handled with PD-because. See File:Jajinci prisoner.jpg for the rationale and categorisation. De728631 (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Grandfathered old images
If I remember rightly, we've grandfathered in some old images that don't fit our current license standards, largely because the current standards weren't yet developed; for example, we don't require OTRS for images that were uploaded before OTRS existed, and images tagged simply as PD are accepted if they were uploaded before we deprecated that template. Do we have a single page (or a simple group of pages) where this kind of thing is discussed? I'm looking into the history of File:PopeCyril14.jpg, which was uploaded in 2005 simply with a PD template. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The image has no source, and was just a PD tag. But the problem was that it had no date of creation or anything. As for images tagged with just PD, we have been removing those as time progresses because we were able to ID the images or their authors. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Showdown Cheers Cliffhanger Kiss.jpg
I wonder if this image is significant and irreplaceable. To be honest, the kiss is too easy to understand. --George Ho (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this de minimis?
Background information can be found.

File:Cerritos Veterans Memorial Pond.JPG is a picture of a pond. However, this pond is part of the sculpture found in Cerritos Veterans Memorial, located in the California, which was completed in 2006. Would this picture be an example of de minimis, or would it still be copyrighted because it's part of the sculpture? — ξ xplicit  02:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you've got a close up of the sculpture, I'd argue it is not de minimis (that would more likely be the case if you were taking a shot from a much larger distance to , say, capture a building behind the sculpture and happened to include the sculpture in front. --M ASEM (t) 02:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The closeup is of a tiny portion of the sculpture (I'd say less than 10%). The Hills of Cerritos (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the issue here would be that, even if it is a small portion of the sculpture, the subject of the image is still a copyrighted work and is still subject to said copyright. From what I gather, this is not a case where a copyrighted work that just happens to be in the picture, which is what de minimis covers. This is a full-on picture of a copyrighted work, and falls outside the scope of de minimis. — ξ xplicit  23:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the opposite of de minimis. De minimis only applies when the copyrighted object is not the subject of the work.  The pool is part of the copyrighted statue, and is the subject of this photograph.  It is not free, and based on the article I can't imagine a fair use claim would work. Ryan Vesey 00:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. The pool is not a part of the sculpture. It is a part of the monument. The monument is not copyrightable - only the sculpture is. The Hills of Cerritos (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire momunment is a 3D work of art, even if the only "artistic" portion is the center sculpture. Per US FOP, 3D works of arts do not have freedom of panorama, so any close up of any part of the monument will carry copyright. --M ASEM (t) 16:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "The entire momunment is a 3D work of art, even if the only "artistic" portion is the center sculpture."
 * That's a self-contradictory statement. The art is the sculpture. The fountain is a staging for the sculpture. It is therefore architecture. The Hills of Cerritos (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The pool is arguably not subject to copyright. It has an intrinsic utilitarian function.  See here.  --Elvey (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing valuable about the picture that doesn't relate to the (presumably un-free) work so I don't see a good rationale for finding it de minimis. The pond is there because of the sculpture. If we remove both from the picture, what's left? --Elvey (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone have access to the sculptor's contract? Perhaps the work is free per the PD-CAGov template; arguably it would be if s/he was making a work for hire, per http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf applied to a CA work. But I doubt it.--Elvey (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

News photographers in foreign countries
If an old photo is taken by a news agency in a foreign land, is the copyright status dependent on the laws of the photographer/agency's country of origin, or the laws of the country the photo is taken in? This photo is taken in 1937 in China by AFP, and the copyright says "1937 Getty Images" (so I assume it's published in 1937 as well). If this photo is allowed to be uploaded (I think it is, but not sure), do we use the China PD template or something else? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The copyright status of a photo (or of any other type of work) is not dependent on the laws of a country. The use of a photo (or other work) is dependent on the copyright law(s) of the country (countries) where that photo (work) is to be used. If the work was published, the authorship of the work is generally determined under the law of the country where its first publication occurred with the consent of its copyright holder. But, for the rest (for example, the duration of the copyright) the copyright status of the work is determined by the copyright law of the country where the work is to be (re)used. So, about a work that you want to use in a given country, you must find the facts about the work (when and where was it first published, who is the author, etc.) and from those facts, you must determine if the requirements of the law are met in the country where you want to use it. I'm guessing that your question may have been about the determination of the "country of origin", to verify if a work can be used in the United States under the copyright law of the United States and if it can be uploaded to Commons under the internal policy of Commons. For that, you must find in what country the work was first published with the consent of its copyright holder. Generally, that will be the country of origin for those purposes.
 * About the particular photo that interests you, this site seems to hint that it could have been one of the six photos of beheadings included in the 16-photo so-called booklet of Luo Jin . But it's not clear at all. You could probably get more information about this photo by asking directly the help of Wikipedia editiors who are specialists of topics related to the Sino-Japanese war. Note that the photo is (sort of) available on Commons at this url, although on the associated description page it is overwritten by another photo from the same source website. You could ask the user who uploaded those two photos what he knows about the first photo and why he overwrote it with the other photo. Also, you could have a look in the voluminous archives of the discussion page of the article Nanking Massacre and see if there could be something there about this photo. There is a strong possibility that the author of the 1937 photo was an unknown Japanese soldier and that the photo was published without his consent. I'm not sure where that would leave you in terms of the acceptability of the photo for Commons. In practice, a similar situation does not seem to be a problem for other photos in the Category:Nanjing Massacre. Finally, it can be noted that the copy you linked to on the Getty website does not really document the 1937 photo. It documents a recent photo taken of the 1937 photo which was on display at a museum in Beijing. Robyn Beck of the AFP is the photographer who took the recent photo of the photo (in 1997 or later). The mention "1937 Getty images" should probably not be taken as meaning something else.
 * -- Asclepias (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that your question may have been about the determination of the "country of origin", to verify if a work can be used in the United States under the copyright law of the United States and if it can be uploaded to Commons under the internal policy of Commons... Generally, that will be the country of origin for those purposes. Yes, I think that's what the OP's after - when will the country of origin of a work by a US journalist (say) in another country be considered to have originated from that country or the US? (What about if the journalist is British but working for an American firm?) That I do not know but would be interested to find out. I think Asclepias is right to put some weight on the country of first publication but I can see problems with that definition - when considering freedom of panorama, the question is all about where the image was taken, and in regard to that inquiry I don't think it is correct to say The copyright status of a photo is not dependent on the laws of a country.. The question of FoP is not necessarily about country of origin but you can see how it might contribute to the debate. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Randy's donuts1 edit1.jpg
Does anyone know whether a copyright was taken or renewed on the donut sculpture here? It appears that the image needs either PD-US-no notice or PD-US-not renewed for the sculpture in addition to the copyright status for the photograph. Ryan Vesey 15:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that the donut is part of an unusual architecture of the building and thus is subject to freedom of panorama. —teb728 t c 19:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The deal is, it was created before 1978 and efforts were not taken to keep it from being photographed. That means that the lack of FOP only is an issue if copyright was not taken out on the donut or if it was not removed.  The donut would have been created in 1953. Ryan Vesey 19:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers images


Do first two images (or "Sam and Diane" images) increase significance of their own articles? What about the Jeopardy one? --George Ho (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd argue that the Cliff Jeopardy one is actually okay, since the reception talks about that scene (incl losing everyone on the final jeopardy question). The first two images I don't think satisfy either article; I may let the wedding one stand for Sam & Diane since, of course, that's a key moment in their relationship, but the first one, if it is supposed to be emotional, I'm not seeing it. --M ASEM  (t) 21:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * They all seem fine to me. They are all illustrating the specific episodes in question, all represent key scenes from those episodes, and the events so depicted are directly described in each.  -- Jayron  32  21:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll tag the first one for review because it's used in two articles. The last one is all right to use. I'll tag the second for review because I'm not sure if I want to add it in the "Sam and Diane" article. This process is asking for general or specific media questions. --George Ho (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Impossible?
I'd like to add the pledge seal found at the URL below to my user page the 'The Anti-Corruption Pledge' seal. Is it impossible?

It has instructions on how to "Embed your pledge" that involve placing HTML for an iframe on a page. It looks like iframe inclusion isn't allowed, for security reasons. The pledge seal can't be uploaded to the wiki and used on the page because it's not a free image, and fair use of images is not allowed, by policy, on user pages.

But could I create a similar but not identical, free seal and use that? I think so. Seems like a good workaround.

The URL with the seal: http://www.theanticorruptionpledge.org/embedthepledge?k=ahlzfnRoZWFudGljb3JydXB0aW9ucGxlZGdlcg8LEgdQbGVkZ2VyGJmnGgw

For the time being, I'm going with this. TIA for any input. --Elvey (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't actually an answer to your question, but the image might actually be free (I'm about to call it a day for Wikipedia and don't have time to follow up just now). The Anti-Corruption Pledge is a project of Rootstrikers, where there's a footer exclaiming "Rootstrikers content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license." It might be as easy as emailing them to confirm it applies to the other website as well and then forwarding that to OTRS. VernoWhitney (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I just shot them an email asking about it, so I'll keep an eye out for their reply. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I got a positive response from them, so I'll forward that to OTRS and I think it looks good for uploading the actual image under a free license. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Takedown notice for photo that I took
Hi! I received an admin takedown notice re the following photo-- File:Professor_Susan_Scafidi.jpeg. I took the photo myself and own 100% of the copyright. I freely uploaded it and gave permission for its use on Wikipedia. The notice, however, indicates that photo violates Wikipedia's rights policy and that I need to substitute a freely available photo, such as one that I took myself.

Since I took the original photo myself, it's not clear to me how there's a problem. Before uploading I checked out various rules + recommendations, and I followed the advice to note that I took the photo and hold the copyright. I explained everything in detail on the photo page, but I gather that the explanation didn't suffice. The photo is still scheduled for deletion tomorrow.

I've once again reviewed Wikipedia's media usage policies as well as the takedown notice itself, and I have no idea how uploading a photo I took & fully own could be a violation of fair use & my copyright. The only thing I can guess is that someone saw that the photo had been published in the Wall Street Journal, but that's not truly an issue--I let them use the photo (without compensation) to accompany an article featuring the photo's subject, but I gave them no rights other than a license to publish it in their newspaper. Surely it can't be necessary for me to have to pay, for instance, Getty Images for a different commercially licensed photo because a few years ago I let a photo that I took & own be used one time for free?

If someone could help explain the issue here, I would be truly grateful. As an attorney and professor who has written about & taught intellectual property for years, I'm more than happy to do whatever it takes to abide by Wikipedia's media copyright policy. I sincerely do not see how replacing a photo I took with one that I will take makes a difference under the rules. Thanks!

Fashionethics (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Short answer: You uploaded a photo of a living person with a non-free license tag. Were the photo non-free, that's a red flag and why it was tagged. Assuming you are uploading it under a CC-BY license or Public Domain license, we just have to fix the tags used, as we'd otherwise welcome the image. Replace what you have on that page for the image with the free license you want to use from WP:ICT/FL, and the other information (source, date, etc.) with the template Information.  You don't need to have non-free rationales or the like. --M ASEM  (t) 16:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you used a non-free use template, rather than one of those suggested at WP:ICT/FL. If you replace the non-free use template with, say, cc-by-sa-3.0, it should be OK.--ukexpat (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks! When I added the photo I chose the permission for use on Wikipedia dropdown when selecting the license - clearly I must have mucked something up along the way. License changed per recommendations. Much appreciated! Fashionethics (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have cleaned up the image info page and tagged it for moving to Commons.--ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Dutch patent illustration
Hello, the drawing at the end of 1977 patent NL7603691 is interesting for the kitesurfing article. For US patents, there is the Template:PD-US-patent, but for Dutch? I searched "european patent" and "dutch patent" in these page archives without success. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Question about the image uploaded by me taken from the public website
I uploaded freely avaialable images from the website and it was deleted. i want to know more about it.


 * File:Rahul Singh GL110713079.jpg
 * File:Rahul-singh 527370.jpg
 * File:File:Rahul-singh 527371.jpg

Also i want to know which license should i use? freely licensed, creative commons Attribution share alike, creative commons Attribution, GNU Documentation license, or No Rights Reserved Public License as i have already send the authority letter to use the images of the actor rahul singh to permissions-enwikimedia.org" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preeti oberoi12 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Most images you find on the internet are not usable. If an image is usable at all, then to determine the license: You determine who the photographer is and which specific free license the photographer has granted. —teb728 t c 09:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering. so you mean to say that i should upload a picture from internet which says free to use or the image that has never been uploaded on internet. And name of the photographer should be there along with license. By license what exactly you mean? like a document published by the photographer written or printed? User:Preeti oberoi12 —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well actually you may only upload images from the internet or from elsewhere that are clearly stated to be freely licenced and that generally means you will know who took the photo as well as that it is available under one of our acceptable free licences tags such as those found at WP:ICT/FL or is in the public domain. After or during upload you choose a licence tag which will be added to the image page that supports the free licencing that you will have found for that image and that is usually found one the image page itself or on the photographer's website. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I got it. Thanks for the help :) Preeti oberoi12 (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Press Pictures
I have a question. If a company has a section of their website that is dedicated to posting image for people to download and use, is this considered fair use? For example, the website for Remington Defense has a section called "Media" (Found HERE). Since they invite you to download these images and use them as wallpapers, are these same to use? --Zackmann08 (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * They would need to be used as non-free images but that begs the question that if they are objects that you can take pictures of, then the use of these images from the web site would violate WP:NFCC about replaceable free use. --M ASEM (t) 20:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

How to report individual probable graphic copyright violations?
I seem to be having a difficult time finding the correct avenue in which to report probably graphic copyright violations. For one example: Uploader has own-work tag, but identifies the picture as comming from a known commercial website. Also notices that this particular user has huge numbers of graphic uploads, some of which have use rationalizations which are suspect. (e.g. ). How do i report stuff like this or tag it so that it is reviewed by someone? BeadleB (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Tag with Db-f9 (a speedy deletion tag based on a copyright violation). Let me scan the rest, if the other images are suspect, a block may be necessary. --M ASEM  (t) 20:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I checked the uploaders of those two images but neither have extensive uploads (5 and 2 respectively). Are you sure you've got the right images or user in mind? --M ASEM (t) 20:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Portrait of Adrienne Rich
The author of the image will soon be sending an e-mail to the Image Copyright Help Desk indicating her agreement to publish the work under the free license “Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0” (unported).

When would I be able to edit the relevant Wikipedia page so that this image replaces the for the subject of the article? Thanks for all of your work. Hysarber (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * it is done already. You can be bold and do it.  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:AK-47Rifle.jpg
I think File:AK-47Rifle.jpg maybe violating copyright but I am not familiar with this area. The uploader says its his/her own work but the page also says that the image is from here. Yaris678 (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Tagging for CSD review. --M ASEM (t) 03:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Confused about an image
Hello, I uploaded File:Barb Jungr.jpg and have had a question about this image -

Thanks for uploading File:Barb Jungr.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please: Go to the file description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

I have permission to use this image from the copyright holder - but am confused by the response above and am not sure what to do to resolve this - I don't really understand the notes above. Can someone give me a pointer?

Thanks.
 * There is a form around here somewhere that you send to the person who has the rights and they sign it. I dislike the form a lot, but the reality around here is that 1/2 (from an independent, unscientific survey) editors who say, "I have permission" or "I took the picture" are not telling the truth.  You are probably from the truthful 1/2, but how do we know?  The answer is that you get it in writing from the copyright holder. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See the process set out at WP:IOWN.--ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Caltrain logo.svg
File:Caltrain logo.svg Is this simple enough to qualify as PD-textlogo rather than Non-free logo? Useddenim (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Being a US logo, yes. ww2censor (talk) 08:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Santa Clara VTA logo.svg
File:Santa Clara VTA logo.svg Is this simple enough to qualify as PD-textlogo rather than Non-free logo? Useddenim (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. ww2censor (talk) 08:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

File:ACE Logo.png
File:ACE Logo.png And yet another one… Is this simple enough to qualify as PD-textlogo rather than Non-free logo? Useddenim (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This logo is too simple to create. Changed licensing info. --George Ho (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * and yes. ww2censor (talk) 08:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Licensing of photos of gifts to U.S. Presidents
Bdcousineau works at the Ford Presidential Library and Museum, which is uploading more than a quarter million images to Commons for use in Wikipedia and other places. Some of those images are photos of gifts made to Gerald Ford when he was President of the United States. See, for example, Commons:Category:United States Bicentennial materials in the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum. There's a thread on Commons about the licensing issue, but there's more traffic on this page and the images are being brought into Wikipedia. The photographs are licensed as "PD-US-gov", but it is not clear as to whether the underlying object are PD-US-gov since many of them were made and sent to Ford by ordinary U.S. citizens. The best I could come up with is that most gifts pass directly to the U.S. Federal Government, see Presidential Gifts: Their Handling And Legal Status, so I'm thinking that copyright in the photographed gifts to U.S. presidents is not a copyright problem. But that is more of a guess. I'm hoping that someone here can provode a more definate answer. the Ford Presidential Library and Museum is a U.S. federal government entity. Basically, the gifts go Citizen creates gift --> Citizen send gift --> U.S. President Gift Unit --> National Archives --> a National Archives Library and Museum --> Library and Museum photographs the gift --> photo uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia --> photo used in Wikipedia. (P.S. Please feel free to welcome Bdcousineau to Wikimedia family!) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The same question applies generally to objects pictured in the category Artifacts at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum. The fact that objects were offered as gifts and are in the Ford collection or anywhere else does not make the works embodied in those objects different from any other works as far as their copyright status is concerned. The usual rules apply. A very small number of those objects (if any) might be PD-US-gov if they were created by employees of the U.S. government as part of their duties, but the vast majority of those objects (perhaps all) are certainly not PD-US-gov, because it seems obvious that they were not created by employees of the U.S. government as part of their duties. A large proportion of those objects are clearly copyrightable and therefore they are, or  at least they were at some point, under the copyright of their respective copyright holders (often the artist or the artist's heirs, sometimes other persons). However, some of those objects may have entered the public domain in the U.S. for different reasons (for example if copies of them were published in the United States before 1978 without a copyright notice). But before one can conclude to a public domain status for a particular object, one must document the relevant facts about that object: who is the creator, is he/she alive or in what year did he/she die, who is or was the copyright holder, was the object ever "published", if so in what year and in what country was it first published, did it have a copyright notice, etc. If, from the facts, it can't be demonstrated or reasonanly assumed that a copyrightable object has entered the public domain for an explicit reason, then it should be assumed that it is still under copyright. The photographic reproductions of copyrighted non-free objects can't be hosted on Commons unless there is a release of rights from their copyright holders. Some other objects may be uncopyrightable or otherwise accepted on Commons depending on the type of object.  See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter for more details.  -- Asclepias (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Asclepias covered that pretty well. Even if the copyright was transferred along with the object itself (which would have to be in writing) the U.S. Government can and does retain copyright to works like that (e.g., the Sacagawea dollar), they don't automatically get released into the public domain. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What? I believe the above folks are mistaken.  Just because an object isn't in the public domain doesn't mean that photographs of that object aren't in the public domain either!  I recall that WMF's general counsel stated, e.g. that photographs of copyrighted halloween costumes are perfectly fine if the photographer freely licenses the photograph.--Elvey (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking a photograph of a piece of artwork (e.g. a sculpture) creates a derivative work. Assuming both the photo and the artwork involve sufficient creativity, then the resultant photograph is protected by copyrights held by both the original artist and the photographer. Taking a photograph of a sculpture in the public domain, for example, can still result in a copyrighted photo so long as that photo is not a slavish reproduction of the original. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of what you just said is often false. Do you know nothing about PD-US-Gov?  PD-FL-Gov?  PD-CA-Gov?  For (virtually) all of the millions of works by the US, FL or CA gov't, your second sentence is FALSE.  Do you know nothing about non-copyrightability of objects with an inherent functional purpose? Other than that, I agree with what you said above.  Oh, and one error: Your first sentence is only applies to artwork that is subject to or controlled by copyright, not to artwork in the public domain.  See Ets-Hokin_v._Skyy_Spirits,_Inc. - "[D]erivative work must be based upon a copyrightable work." - held that a photograph of a Skyy Vodka bottle was not a derivative work. --Elvey (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly well aware of the situations you mention. I was apparently over-generalizing the situation as I was replying to your comment about "an object [not] in the public domain". If the photograph is in the public domain then the only copyright to worry about is that of the underlying work. Contrariwise if the underlying work is uncopyrightable (as in the case of the vodka bottle) or in the public domain then the only copyright to worry about is that of the photograph. The problem we encounter here is the fact that the work of the federal government does not automatically make the derivative work public domain--each image would have to be evaluated individually. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acknowledging the over-generalizing. I was concerned because I felt Bdcousineau had been misinformed as a result and therefore would not be able to address the copyright issues properly.  But from his comments below, it seems he gets it.  However, the Commons:COM:PRP is very inaccurately described.   I'm concerned about the description of the precautionary principle policy, which is here.   I think the use of the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" to describe it misdescribes the policy.  It's not that strict.--Elvey (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag covers a somewhat similar situation, albeit focused on an underlying work in the public domain rather than a photograph in the public domain as is the question here. In either case, any subsisting copyright (that's not freely licensed) is a problem for us. Costumes are a whole additional can of worms, since they are part artistic (copyrightable) and part utilitarian (uncopyrightable) works, and if you read the WMF's statement at commons:COM:COSTUME it's certainly not a statement that such images are "perfectly fine", although that's apparently the prevailing attitude at commons. If you are thinking of a different statement from legal, a link would be greatly appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read through ALL of commons:COM:COSTUME, or just the WMF part? Keep reading through the part beginning, "However, the community..." !  Such images are by and large, "perfectly fine" even though the determination for each image may well be complex or difficult. However there are indeed exceptions, mainly where such an image is primarily of a mask or other separable element of a costume. I was familiar with Godwin's statement, not the later legal team's statement, which I see has not been accepted by the community, due to, among other things, the concerns of  Carl Lindberg and AnonMooscase and the case I cited above. --Elvey (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is v interesting. I'll check with the Presidential Materials/Gift Unit to see what I can find out. Please give me a day or so; then I'll remove/move the images. This will be a loss if the images move from Commons - not just the Ford gifts, but other presidential gifts as we move them online. Is it possible to make a new PD-US-?? for this group? There are 13 Presidential Libraries - my hope is to get them all onto Commons/Wikipedia. There's no way to contact each maker/artist/gifter, especially if it's a plaque/award. We do have a have a "Deed of Gift" - I can key in the important bits if you think it's relevant. Cheers Bdcousineau (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are the "Deed of Gift"s from the original makers/artists/gifters (or are there other such forms which come from them) or are they just from the presidents to the libraries? As I mentioned above it is possible for the copyright to be transferred in writing, but it all depends on the contract language (if there is any). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The status tag templates (such as PD-US-...) are just informative tools that we use to reflect the legal status of the files. They must accurately reflect that status. But we can't invent new tags to misrepresent the legal status of the files or the status of the pictured objects. We can't change the law, or change the actual legal status of the objects, or strip the authors of their copyrights, just by making a status template on Commons or Wikipedia. As explained above, the pictured objects fit into different categories as to their copyright status. So, no, it does not seem possible to make a single status template that could accurately reflect the status of all objects in the whole collection. Each file should use the proper existing tag(s) corresponding to its particular situation. As mentioned, many files are fine when the pictured objects are, for example, uncopyrightable by nature, or their pictorial reproduction is accepted under the current state of the law and jurisprudence in the U.S. (Commons:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter), or their copyright is expired because of PD-US-no notice. That last situation may be applicable for many objects published during the era of the Ford presidency, for example the above-threshold-of-originality campaign buttons. The file then gets two status templates, one for the photo and on for the object. In relevant cases where possible, you could use a combo template such as Commons:Template:Art Photo, which allows convenient formatting, documenting the object and embedding the templates for the object and for the photo. However, in cases where you arrive at the conclusion that the pictured work is still under copyright and is not covered by an existing PD situation, then we must respect the author's copyright. Just because the authors or copyright holders are difficult or impossible to contact is not a reason to violate their legal rights. About the "Deed of gift", there are caveats. The wording of a blank form would not be useful. You would have to find someone who can testify that there exists an actual specific document signed by the copyright holder and by that specific document the copyright holder renounced or transferred his copyright. Remembering, of course, that the donator of the object is not necessarily the artist who created the object. What you need is an explicit document from the copyright holder of the intellectual property on the creative work about his copyright on the immaterial work, not a document from the ex-owner of the material object about the ownership of the material object. For objects that are gifts, it would be surprising that the government officials pushed it so far as requiring of the artists that they renounce their copyright.  -- Asclepias (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read through all of the costume page. You seem to be overlooking the part that it is specifically about costumes (where the creative elements are legally separable from the non-creative), and not copyrightable works in general--as above, establishing this status would require each image to be evaluated individually. Furthermore, while there is overlap, the commons community is not the enwiki community, and our policies and practices do differ in some significant areas. That they have chosen to ignore the comments from the WMF and allow such works does not require that we do so as well. I have been speaking specifically with regards to the actual copyright status of such images, and not to any policy surrounding their use/hosting. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Gift of Papers and Other Historical Materials of Elizabeth Ford to the Gerald R Ford Library: “According to chapter 21 of the title 44 of the US Code, I Elizabeth Ford, give, donate and convey to the United States of America for eventual deposit to the Gerald R. Ford Library my papers and other historical materials.” Page 1, para 1. (Historical materials are defined in http://uscode.house.gov/pdf/2010/2010usc44.pdf, pg. 59). “It is the Donor’s wish that the Materials be made available for research as soon as possible, and to the fullest extent possible, following their deposit at the Gerald R. Ford Library”. Page 1, para 4. “The Donor hereby gives and assigns the United State of America all copyrights contained in (a) such of the Materials that are unpublished and (b) such of the Donor’s unpublished writings as may be among any collections of papers received by the United States of America from others and deposited in a repository by any agency of the USA.” Pg 3, para 9. Signed, Elizabeth Bloomer Ford, Nov. 15, 1989. In my mind, "publishing" includes electronic versions unimagined in 1989. If this is not firm enough, I can look a few other places. Bdcousineau (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

and more, from en/wiki "In the United States, when copyrighted material is enacted into the law, it enters the public domain." [|Public Domain]. The United States Code chapter 21/title 44 is that law, I think. Bdcousineau (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that "enacted into law" refers to materials that are donated to the US pursuant to Federal law. The donation text that you quoted above just transfers to the US whatever rights the estate had in the materials.--ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that! So that clearly establishes that any copyright held by the immediate donor (e.g., Elizabeth Ford in your example) becomes the property of the government. Unless I'm missing something that does still leave two 'doors' open, if you will. First, that transfer of copyright doesn't automatically become public domain at that point, however, see 17 U.S.C. chapter 1 § 105. The text in our article on public domain is referring to any works which become part of an actual legal statute. Now the government could release everything into the public domain, but I don't know who would have the authority to do that. The other catch is it doesn't address the copyright of the original artist (going back to my discussion with Elvey above, this only applies where the work is actually copyrightable in the first place). VernoWhitney (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth Ford donated only what she owned. She did not donate rights that are owned by other people. And for the copyrights that she did own and transferred to the U.S. government, then it would be necessary either that the copyrights have expired or that the U.S. government released them. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I know, I know, I'm trying! I get that what I typed is only the second half of the story i.e. gift owned by First Family → NARA. I still need to find the first part of the story i.e. maker of gift → First Family ("it doesn't address the copyright of the original artist"). And now who could release gifts to presidents into the public domain. Again, please give me a few days b4 you speedy delete all my uploads. I'd like to get this right, as it effects 100k plus artifacts into Commons in the future. Is there a way to develop a license template just for this class of materials?? I even spoke with the US Copyright Office; nice guy but not helpful to my cause. Bdcousineau (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, we are trying to determine if the images of the Presidential Gifts should go into Wikimedia Commons/free license or Wikipedia/fair use, right? Bdcousineau (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Determining the copyright status of each of the pictured works will tell if the image showing it can be freely used. That will determine if the images can be uploaded and, if so, where. Basically, that will place the images in one of three groups:
 * 1) Images showing works that can be freely depicted. Such images can be uploaded to Commons.
 * 2) Images showing non-free works that will actually be used in fair use, i.e. to illustrate Wikipedia articles about the artistic work in question or about the artist who created the work. Such images can be uploaded to Wikipedia if the conditions of fair use are met. (Non-free content criteria).
 * 3) Images showing non-free works that will not be used in fair use to illustrate articles about the creative work itself or about its creator. Such images cannot be uploaded to any Wikimedia website.
 * -- Asclepias (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * hmm....it's unrealistic to think that I (or anyone) could determine copyright status on each of the 20k items in our collection (considered gifts to the President). I did find this |publicdomain.cfm scroll down to:Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.. I've also moved this question up the chain, to the Office of General Counsel/NARA. The lawyeriest of our lawyers. I'll report back. Bdcousineau (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Only 20k? Small player Face-wink.svg. But seriously, it's not unrealistic, It's necessary. Commons currently has more than 15 million files, Wikipedia has millions too, and yes, the copyright status of each file must be determined. That's not as bad as it may sound. After a few typical files from the Ford collection are sorted out, other files that are in the same situation will fall mostly in the same few subcategories. For example, images that pose no problem because the pictured work is uncopyrightable, or images that depict works that were first published in the U.S. before 1978 without copyright notice, etc. If the relevant facts about an object can't be established, then we apply the precautionary principle, which essentially is that if the known facts do not show beyond reasonable doubt that a work is free, then it must be assumed that it is not free. The basic principle is always the same: we must respect the law and the copyrights. If we can't tell that a work is free, and on what legal basis it's free, we can't use it. After some time, you should have a good idea of what types of images can be uploaded (and with what templates) and of what types of images can't be uploaded because the works are not free or because the facts necessary to determine their copyright status are not documented. As long as you pass on all the relevant information that is available on the items (what is the origin of the object, who is the author of the work, etc.), there are certainly many other users (including me) who will volunteer to help with determining how that information fits (or not) into the acceptable public domain categories and to help with the tagging of the files. It goes without saying (but let me say it again) that your considerable work with uploading those images of this collection of objects is much appreciated. And we'll help as much as we can, so that as many files as possible can be uploaded and kept. Only, as much as we like the images, we could not host images that would violate copyrights or that would not be freely reusable. So there's probably some proportion of the images that it will not be possible to host. We can hope that the proportion of non-free or insufficiently documented works will be small compared to the proportion of documented and free works.  -- Asclepias (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * yes, 2ok from us. 80k from the other presidential sites. I guess size does matter, even here. Ok. I would hazard a guess that since Ford left office in 77 the bulk will be "images that depict works that were first published in the U.S. before 1978 without copyright notice". Here the basic groups of artifacts we have:

I don't think we are in the business of making artists renounce their copyright/legal rights. Can you give me a clear understanding of what constitutes 'publication' -my head is swimmy after a day of legal reading on the interwebs. I have a WiR Michael Barera starting in Jan. He can delve into this along with your help (since you volunteered) - feel free to contact him, and re-cap. I get cranky as you wiki-dudes corral my efforts, but really, it's fascinating, and since I want to graduate from newbie status one day I appreciate the clear calm explanations. And thanks for noticing my attempts, it been a long day in defense-mode (not just here). I'll look forward to what the NARA lawyers have to say, too; we are curious about our artifacts in other open source projects beyond this one. And I have to note the cruel justice that a Canadian is arguing with me about US presidential gifts. =p Bdcousineau (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * hand made items
 * awards and plaques, commemorative pieces (signed sports equip)
 * clothing and jewelry
 * campaign materials
 * sport equipment
 * gifts from foreign dignitaries
 * misc personal items
 * Publication quotes the legal definition and gives some other information. This is getting into a fuzzier (as in more specifically case-dependent) area of copyright law, but if a hand made item was created and immediately gifted and intended to be private to the president's family, then the work is probably unpublished. For an item purchased from a store and then gifted, then it was published when first put on sale. http://asmp.org/tutorials/published-or-unpublished.html covers some of the ambiguity. Campaign materials are probably published since they were presumably distributed by the copyright holder to others (e.g. campaign workers) for further distribution. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd agree that the bulk of the Ford collection will be PD images of works that have fallen into the PD. Asclepias describes the situation well - there are folks willing to help.  A bot herder could correctly tag that bulk of the Ford collection at once if we nail down how it should be tagged, and differentiated from the rest of the collection (e.g. if we change the tags on everything in the collection that is not an image of a work first published in the U.S. before 1978 without copyright notice. I'd try tagging a couple images using the tags Asclepias has pointed you towards would be a good next step. --Elvey (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note also, that our rules are in many ways much stricter than the law requires. You as an agent of the US government can legally put photographs that the US owns but didn't take up on a government website that we can't host at Commons because they're not public domain, and we can't host here at en because the often significant work to create a valid fair use rationale is not being done. If a third party had copyright rights to a photographed item your use would have to be fair use, but fair use of such images on a government website doesn't require a written fair use rationale, I can't think of usage scenario where a photograph of an object in the collection would be likely to be used in a legally unfair way, though I can easily concoct scenarios where it could happen.  And the perfect solution would legislation that directly places the contents of the presidential libraries collections in the public domain, (as could, I think, a presidential order or action by the  United States Copyright Office).  (Such legislation could well exist without the knowledge of the folks reading this.)  That would save a lot of work.  But I'm not holding my breath!  It would also be possible for the community to change its own policies.   But I'm not holding my breath for that either! :-) --Elvey (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is all incredibly helpful, thank you all for your considered opinions and experience. From my side, since I want to grow this project beyond the Ford materials, it's important to learn this now. Plus, sadly, I have some detractors who are just waiting for me to mess this up, so I won't/can't.
 * I did hear back from the NARA lawyer. I will post what she wrote in the next day or two (haveta retrieve it from my office email). Essentially, she said look for a (c) symbol, and then check for the gift date (as you've taught me, the laws changed during Ford's time in office). From her point of view, she feels NARA is protected if there is NO (c) and it has a certain date range. Jim suggested using PD-US-no notice see our discussions here, and here. I'd like to start with PD-US-no notice for now, if that seems workable to the community. I'll have my WiR tag everything with that when he starts in Jan. And I'll keep him up dated on this as well.
 * I would like to develop a usable PD-USGOV-PresLib if that seems acceptable.
 * I read on whitehouse.gov that the Obamas are trying to get the public to gift to charities, as opposed to donating objects - that'll make someone's job easier in the long run, I'd say.
 * I AM getting a little nervous when I think about Bicentennial materials that are commercially produced with the Federally funded logo design on them, or WIN buttons and the like - we can't even figure out where that logo came from yet - but I think you've begun to assuage my fears with the campaign materials discussion above.
 * Feel free to delete whatever warrants it; I did a first pass today, and I went and physically looked at WIN buttons, etc to see if there was anything on the buttons (nope). I'll do more next week. Bdcousineau (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'm afraid to ask: what about a painting pre-1973 that has a signature, but no (c) .... Signatures only counted as "notice" after 1978 or later, right? Or am I confused? Bdcousineau (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Easy question; wikipedia has the answer:"In the US a copyright notice must contain the copyright symbol (a lower case letter c completely surrounded by a circle), or its equivalent. The word "copyright" or the abbreviation "Copr." are also accepted in the US" source --Elvey (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI: a crude first attempt to use the art Photo tag and my new PD-useful-object tag!  I welcome feedback and assistance getting it to production quality.


 * I don't think simply using PD-US-no notice alone would be right. You said to Jim, "have been told that the gifts to the Presidents/First Families are in the public domain" - and I say above "...Such legislation could well exist..." Zolo may have stirred up a hornet's nest that didn't really need to be disturbed.  If you can get someone to say "that the gifts to the Presidents/First Families are in the public domain" AND explain why that's true, then we're golden!


 * Also, your links intended to be to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jameslwoodward#More_Presidential_Libraries_questions are to en, not commons.


 * Sorry I didn't get back to you here. I think you have a pretty good answer already, but I'll answer too:


 * I think yes to "utilitarian gifts upload to Commons." You'd could use a polished version of what I did with the art Photo tag (link a few lines above) for the silver service. Alternately, making and using a properly made undefined is probably as acceptable, but I'm unsure.  I think 'its complicated' re the non-utilitarian stuff, as noted above...
 * You're welcome; hope Jan's CommonsHelper2 tool is proving useful.


 * It sure is entertaining to see that evidence that all the gifts of state are property of the US Government is right there in The Constitution (and http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/tokens_and_treasures/tokens_and_treasures_home.html#introduction confirms the ownership too.) And that article links to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7342 which says that there is a detailed (who, what, when, where) listing in the Federal Register of every gift. --Elvey (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I know, right? I told my WiR to address me as "your highness" and darn him, he refuses, citing that clause. Mr. Smarty-pants!
 * I like your art photo tag, let's see what Jim comes up and combine the results and see where that gets us.
 * Bad mis-directing links! Just learning that one, apparently not too well.
 * I can look into getting an official "the gifts to the Presidents/First Families are in the public domain" AND why that's true" give me a few days. Bdcousineau (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Israeli "Wikipedia Law"
At least, by this source (in Russian), on December 17th, Israeli government has approved the law putting all governmental/state photo materials into PD, free to use and allowed for commercial use (with appropriate attribution by individual rules for each ministry).

However, one thing is forbidden - to create derivative works that can harm good name/reputation of author of the photo or/and State of Israel (sorry, translating from Russian, actual quote would be better). While Wikipedia authors are unlikely to make such derivative works, is this law compatible with riles of WikiCommons? Tatewaki (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Restrictions on derivative works are not compatible with commons:Commons:Licensing.--ukexpat (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to point out that this law (of course, it it is confirmed by its actual text instead of my "translation of translation") does not forbid derivative works altogether, only those "that can harm good name/reputation of author of the photo or/and State of Israel".


 * Considering that the paragraph 4d of the legal code of CC-BY-SA 3.0 license states "You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation.", this is actually a border case - forbiding harm to reputation of author by derivative work is covered and compatible; the question is whether State of Israel fits in same category in this case (as sort of "rights owner" for the "for government" works). Tatewaki (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The pictures can also be used for commercial purposes, though each ministry will be able to set rules about commercial use. hohum. I assume they've discussed this on the Hebrew Wikipedia somewhere, although I'm uneasy. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... this is worse. However, in Russian language Israeli source they've mentioned different rules of attribution that might be set by each ministry for commercial use, not different possibilities of commercial use... I really hope someone in Hebrew WP has clearer image on it.Tatewaki (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No use to us for Commons. The freedom to create any derivative work is essential, as we can't afford an argument over whether specific uses will "harm" reputations or not.
 * It doesn't affect Wikipedia much. Anything free should be on Commons anyway, anything that's accepted on Wikipedia (but can't be on Commons instead) is only likely to be there through fair-use (per US law, where the Wikimedia servers are). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is, taken to that extreme, we have no right to keep any modern works from many nations. Moral rights, as stated in the Berne Convention, provide that "Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation." In many nations this is unalienable; no matter how much they may have claimed to put their work under a CC-BY or PD license, a French (e.g.) author or photographer could always object to such actions taken to something they've uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Tatewaki, if there are any restrictions concerning use or attribution, then the material is not "PD" as you state. Public domain works, by definition, have no copyright holder who can impose such restrictions. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Facebook Photographs
Uploading photographs from Facebook or other social media websites? I am creating several pages on my favorite musicians. What is the policy on using photographs from Facebook. How should it be sourced? Thanks Please message me on my talk page if possible. Firemedicmonkey (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally facebook pictures cannot be used. If however in the picture comments you find it says the image is public domain or licensed with CC-BY or CC-BY-SA then it can be considered.  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Ponsonby Rugby Club Letter.jpg
Is a letter from 1981 written in New Zealand by am individual a literary work as defined by section 2 of the NZ Copyright Act 1994 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM345634.html) or it's predecessor the 1962 Act? NtheP (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)