Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2014/July

Two 14th century manuscript scans from UK libraries
I just uploaded File:Bodleian, Purgatory, Belacqua.jpg to Commons, a clip from a Bodleian scan of a 14th century Italian manuscript (Dante), found on their web page (linked to by the image file). They claim a copyright upfront, but their link for the licensing details is dead. I simply refused to believe it was anything other than boilerplate copyfraud, but seeing the above discussion, maybe not. One difference is that the manuscript is not of English origin.

I had earlier uploaded File:Sir Orfeo, first page, Auchinleck.jpg, from the National Library of Scotland. That file I uploaded to WP, it has been marked for transfer to Commons. I asked about "sweat of the brow" here at the time, and was told it really didn't apply. Doublechecking, I found a NC license claim buried way down over here, and again I'm working up a hatred against the British.

I suppose restricting both to WP suffices? Choor monster (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And apparently When to use the PD-Art tag answers my question. Choor monster (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We (This being not only en.wiki but the Foundation) consider faithful scans of works clearly in the PD as PD only. There is still an ongoing issue but which should not deter us (again, en.wiki + Foundation) in which because UK has a lower threshold for originality, using "sweat of the brow" concepts, that good quality scans could be taken as copyright, but the Foundation has backed the project in saying that this is really not acceptable (this is why I say "we", in that this specific type of case is one we've got legal backing on, see National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute). So yes, unmodified scans of the 14th century works should be marked PD. --M ASEM  (t) 15:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * But they are copyright in the UK of course. See National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute for some background and note the copyright template on (for example) the portrait of Charles Darwin featured in that article. It would be very unwise to republish these images in the UK. I dare say there are those at the National Portrait Gallery and the National Gallery, London, (also affected) who likewise have worked up a hatred of the US. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. In fact, I took exactly that tack with File:Louis N Parker, 1917.jpg an NPG-derived image.  That photo was infinitely better than other US-based (ie, 100% PD) images I found of him.  I'll revise these two other licenses immediately, and get the one image off of Commons. Choor monster (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * About the files linked in this section, the policies of Commons and Wikipedia are identical. Also, the legal situation is identical with respect to uploading the files to Commons or to Wikipedia, both Wikimedia websites. So, there is no reason to request the deletion of the Belacqua file from Commons while uploading it to Wikipedia. Or, if you prefer, there is no reason to upload the file to Wikipedia while requesting its deletion from Commons. Commons accepts those files, so if a user wants to upload them, normally that's where they should go. If he uploads it to Wikipedia, he can't forbid other users to transfer it, or at least copy it, to Commons. A particular user may have personal reasons to not want to upload this sort of file at all, e.g. he lives in the UK and fears that the library will sue him there, or he wants to please the directors of the library, or he holds a personal opinion about files that should or should not be uploaded, etc. But any such personal reason would apply equally to uploads to Commons and Wikipedia, not to one site only and not to the other.
 * When the files are uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia, the description pages should provide the information allowing the reader to find the information about the statements of the source regarding the copyright, so the potential reusers have all the information. A link to the source should be provided. Also, if applicable, one of the variants of the templates PD-Art or the template PD-scan on Commons include links to pages containing explanations.
 * The page from auchinleck.nls does not have a NC license. It states that the materials are provided for personal use. (Something that in most countries is allowed directly by the laws anyway). So, that means no license at all. That does not allow publication, even for non-commercial uses. It insists on the fact that commercial use is strictly prohibited. (I never really understood why some people write that sort of warnings "[action X] is strictly prohibited". Like, when those people write "[action X] is prohibited", it wouldn't be really prohibited.)
 * The photo of Parker is indeed identified as from the studio, not from a particular photographer. And it's from after 1903. Both the NPG (I think) and Commons distinguish between the (studio) Bassano Ltd photos (C:Category:Bassano Ltd), of which the particular photographers are generally unknown, and the photos attributed to Bassano, the person (C:Category:Photographs by Alexander Bassano). Most of the files in those categories come from the NPG.
 * (Interwiki links to Commons must include the prefix "Commons:" or "C:". When linking to a page in the Commons namespace of Commons, the link will begin with "Commons:Commons:", or with C:Commons:".)
 * -- Asclepias (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Having done this, I want to make some comments that are relevant to doing things like this in the future. And I'm commenting here since any technical fixes should be made with some consensus on how these things should be handled.
 * There doesn't seem to be a move image from Commons to WP tag, speedy or otherwise. Also, the Upload Wizard strongly discourages uploading to WP same name files as something on Commons (no notice was taken of the speedy-delete tag).  Having completed the process, the Wizard in fact refused to actually allow clicking on the "Upload local" image.  I changed the name, reloaded the page, checked that the button to click was indeed available, and then I changed the name back without reloading, and clicked.  Choor monster (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then it seems it works as it should. Indeed, files should not be uploaded to Wikipedia under a name identical to a file already on Commons. You uploaded the file to Wikipedia, at 16:15, three minutes after the file of the same name had been deleted from Commons at 16:12 at your request. That might explain why you could not use the filename on Wikipedia on your first attempt, if it was before 16:12, but you could use it on your second attempt at 16:15. To move files from Commons to Wikipedia, there's a bot, but only for specific cases that don't apply to this file. It was on the toolserver and it may not work anymore. -- Asclepias (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A single figure from a freely available publication to illustrate a talk discussion
The image in question is kaplan graph.jpg It is taken from http://intl-jcr.sagepub.com/content/50/4/548.abstract freely available at this site http://www.ngo-monitor.org/images/kaplan.pdf. It is common practice to cite individual figures or graphs from publications in public presentations. I do not seek to use this image for a page in the encyclopedia, for that I would see permission from the authors, more to demonstrate the point that two phenomena are closely and strongly correlated, a question which is contested.Cpsoper (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a non-free image, and we cannot allow it's use on talk pages only (per WP:NFCC). For talk page discussions, you can point to the article, and describe what the numbers say, but you can't include that graph. (If this was to be used in mainspace, it would be possible to re-create the graph (based on the uncopyrightability of the raw data) to be a free image, but for just talk page, that's a heck of a lot of excess work) --M ASEM (t) 21:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have now written to the authors/publishers for permission, if it has to be removed in the meantime, so be it. A picture is worth 1000 words. May I ask for a few days grace, pending a response?Cpsoper (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that any such permission from the publisher would have to include the possibility of commercial exploits and changes to the original image. We don't use files with a "Wikipedia-only" permission unless there's no free alternative. And as Masem said, the graph can be recreated from the raw data. Also, from my professional experience with scientific publishers they tend to charge horrid sums for the use of their content, so obtaining permission for this original image to be uploaded here under a free licence may simply not be worth the effort. As to your upload, it would normally have to be deleted after 2 July only as long as the copyright status was unclear. But now that we've established that I'm sorry but I'll have to delete it as a copyright infringement. De728631 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair comment, thanks for your clarity.Cpsoper (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now obtained both the publisher and the author's permission to publish the image of the graph only, without restriction to wiki, but for the purpose of a wiki article. 'Thank you for your request. You may consider this email permission to include the figure as described below.  Normally there would be a fee associated with such a use, however since Dr. Kaplan has approved this request no fee will be assessed.  Thank you for citing the material and providing a link to the SAGE article.' Please can you help guide me as to what I should do next, I am no hurry, I have already published my own similar copy of the data, drawn from the | raw data as suggested above, but this graph does add more information, is derived from data I've no access to and carries the value of being original. Should I perhaps apply for a commons creative licence, or publish it as a free use with attribution or there another route, or is it still impossible to publish on a talk page as not meeting 'free use' criteria? I am not at all clear from the pages I've browsed. I am also interested as a precedent, and not just for this case.Cpsoper (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this photo considered fair use?
I would like to upload the photo from this page http://nsidc.org/research/bios/serreze.html for the article Mark Serreze. The website copyright states: Please provide proper credits for any photo you use: If the image does not have specific citation information on our Web site, we recommend the following citation: "Image/photo courtesy of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder." http://nsidc.org/about/use_copyright.html Is this considered fair use, the authors also provide a high resolution image and the person is a public figure. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The image would fail criteria #1 of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. As someone could take his picture and release it under a compatible license.  GB fan 12:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nvm, they have a public domain policy for uncited photos. See http://nsidc.org/gallery/gallery_faq.html#prokaryotes (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

change picture on Clayton Brook
Hello I am having really bad trouble trying to change the picture. I have gone thought the process many many times now and so how hard can it be just to change a picture as, I have said before the bus stop one does not do use justice at all please please help me ,, and I can I be rung on  so it can be done step by on the phone as I have done everything it has said many times like I said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelle40 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't a copyright question but it's simple to answer. Go the article, delete the current picture (which isn't the most flattering) and replace it with the image you uploaded - the markup is like this  . Incidentally once you have uploaded a pictre on Commons you don't have to upload it to Wikipedia as well. Nthep (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW, in general where possible one should avoid forcing the image to a specified size per WP:IMGSIZE and MOS:IMAGES by adding a pixel size such as "200px" in the example above and you don't need to add the "right" setting because "right" is the default location so it is unnecessary. Less typing all around. ww2censor (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Text and image copyright question!
Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to reuse some texts and images of the Wikipedia in my own website. I know that some of the pictures are free-license but some are not. how can I find out about the text and images copyright policies in terms of law to be able to use it in my own website. It should be mentioned that my website's activities are commercial.

Regards, 129.244.56.122 (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You can find what you need to do over at WP:REUSE, primarily that you will want to include a link to the permanent link that you are reusing the content from as to provide proper credit to WP. The only "gotcha" will be non-free media which is not under a similar reuse license and you will have to check for your needs. --M ASEM (t) 00:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Unisphere, Flushing Meadow
Anyone able to confirm the PD status of this image on Commons of the Unisphere, at Flushing Meadows, a candidate for Featured Image at Wikipedia?

The photo is CC-BY-SA. The question is whether the Unisphere itself is copyright. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Up to 1977 sculputres without a copyright notice are considered PD in the US and that is the licence this image has, so I don't see a problem. If it were, then all the other images in the commons category Unisphere would also be a problem. Did you happen to find a copyright notice on the unisphere? ww2censor (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ww2. I couldn't find a copyright notice myself, but at the discussion an editor (and administrator) found a document that suggested to him a copyright had been registered. The relevant section reads "The Unisphere's image and the word "Unisphere" were both registered as official trademarks of the FairCorporation, and the legal trademark symbol had to appear in the immediate vicinity of any pictorial representation of the structure, and immediately following any use of the word "Unisphere." In addition, the Corporation copyrighted a simplified representation of the Unisphere on an orange and blue background as its official logo". However that's not quite the same as registering the work itself, and indeed the corporation couldn't as the sculpture is in the copyright of its creator. Is that right? I'm not quite sure. I can add that editor now concedes he can't find a registration for the Unisphere iteslf, but finding one before 1977 would indeed require presenting yourself in prson at the US copyright office. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Or reading the actual books with registrations, which are on archive.org and other sites (I had earlier said that I didn't do that as my connection wasn't good enough). I've gone through 1962–65, and nothing was registered for the statue itself, just photographs. This looks to be fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks fine to me but I think all the images in the commons category should have a pre-1978 no copyright template added to them for the sculpture itself as they derivative photos. I can do that as there are not too many images. ww2censor (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. I'll add a note at the "Featured Picture" nomination. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Portrait Caliph Abdulmecid II.jpg
According to the Library of Congress, this is from 1923. However, they also say it's of Mehmed VI, so I'm not sure how reliable they are on that point. Presuming it's Abdulmëcid II - which seems a safe bet - he died in 1926, so it shouldn't matter too much.

What does matter is the copyright status, and I'm not sure how even to begin to figure out the history of Turkish copyright. The tag on it is almost certainly wrong, so there's that.... Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You can start with c:COM:CRT and c:COM:CRT. WIPO is also useful to investiagte foreign copyright issues. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did check those, but it didn't get me very far, since A. I didn't know the transitional rules - some countries put things back in copyyright that had previously left it - and B. I wasn't sure if the work was anonymous, or just very badly documented. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * See also: Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

First time uploading photos
I found this picture http://allthecities.com/system/panoramas/pictures/000/077/851/original/original.?1388995468 from the website http://allthecities.com/cities/vawkavysk/. There is no information provided about who posted this picture or if there is any copyright that I can see on the page. I would like to use this image for the article Vawkavysk. Is it allowable to post to Wikipedia? Jakto (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Almost certainly not. The allthecities.com website carries a notice stating "© 2013 - 2014 AllTheCities. All rights reserved", and even without an explicit copyright notice, we have to assume that an image is copyright unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary. The only way we could use the image would be if the person holding the copyright released it under a free use license - see Uploading images. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Trademark tag consistency
In a recent GAN review, I had the following question from User:Seattle:
 * Should File:Oxford-University-Circlet.svg have the "trademark" tag as File:University of Cambridge coat of arms official.svg has? (third comment).

I don't know the answer so it was suggested I asked you guys. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeap, I'd certainly say so. If there's question about the logo being trademarked, Oxford's info page on the logo specifies its trademarking. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 07:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Splendid, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Are signatures copyright?
Dear media copyright experts: If an editor takes a photograph of a person's signature, should that editor then upload the signature to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons and use it in an article? Or does the creator of the signature have any copyright to it? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Their appearance is copyright in UK and US. - X201 (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a little oversimplified. I'd recommend that the OP (Anne Delong) read commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I blame the source I got it from. - X201 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I have read it. Seems as though only the lawyers would know. I was concerned that about posting a celebrity's signature. We don't add other material that can be used for, say, identity theft, fraud, harassment, etc., such as phone numbers, social security numbers and home addresses. However, I guess in the case of celebrities the signatures aren't hard to find anyway. By the way, what is an OP? Not WP:OP.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Original poster . I'd say that, although we can probably use it, we have nothing concrete on whether or not is should be used. We do have Signatures of living persons, but that's an essay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Aerial photos
I found some aerial photos which are against copyright. How do I fix them? Shabratha (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is too hard to answer without more detail. Please tells us which photos you've found, on which Wikipedia articles. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on your editing history all I can see is that you have not uploaded any images here, so, exactly which images are you talking about and what is their problem. Please link to the page they are found on and not just to the image itself. Fixing, if they do need fixing, will depend on their copyright status and may not even be possible unless you get the copyright holder to release their images freely. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * These pictures are screenshots from software, they are not selfpublished. This is against copyright. Maybe they should be deleted. What is the process. File:Sedam_airport.png, File:Hubli_airport.png, File:Bangalore_international_airport.png, File:Bellary_old_airport.png, File:Koppal_airport.png, File:Harihar_airport.png, File:Sulekere002.png and File:Sulekere001.png Shabratha (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you explain how you know these are software screenshots and not the authors own images? What are the giveaway signs? Is there any other reason to not WP:AGF? They are indeed all from the same uploader but I see he has had some image copyright issues previously. If they are copyright they should indeed be deleted unless they could be claimed as fair use, but I doubt that. You can always put them up for deletion yourself by clicking on the "Nominate for deletion" button on the left side of the screen and filling in the reasons. ww2censor (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at the shadowing and the other artefacts, those images are what you get if you take a 2d satellite image, enhance contrast, stretch it over a terrain model which has lower resolution/lower accuracy, then rotate it to get framing like a real photo taken from a plane. Look at the bushes and the fence in the foreground of File:Sedam_airport.png, they have been flattened, and surface features are blurred because the satellite image is not as hires as a real photo would be. The town in File:Hubli_airport.png has the same problem. Look at how the runway and apron are crumpled in File:Bangalore_international_airport.png, a real photo would show the apron completely flat. Look at the kink in the road on the right of File:Sulekere001.png, it is vertical exaggeration. The bottom right of File:Sulekere002.png looks strange because elevation is distorted until we see resolution problems at top of a small hill, and the viaduct looks zigzag. Google Earth exaggerates vertical, to make pseudo-3d terrain look more dramatic, but that only works where elevation differences are big enough appear in the terrain model which is not so accurate, if you recreate a view like this in software like google earth, most hills become big but some small ones disappear, flat landscape features become crumpled, but buildings and trees become flat, small objects are blurry, and there are contrast-enhancement artefacts. I am not 100% sure it is from Google Earth, we would have similar artefacts with any other software which tries to make 2d satellite images into 3d landscapes, like maybe some flightsims. These are not real photos. Shabratha (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

De728631 (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have a "Nominate for deletion" button, where is the button? Shabratha (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The "Nominate for deletion" button is on the left side under Tools, which may be collapsed (mine is expanded), so may need to be expanded. It is available when you are on an image page. BTW, don't use the full URL, just put the file name between pairs of sqaure backets with a colon before the name, so it just link to the image and deos not display it, like this File:Sulekere001.png as I changed all yours. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have "Tools" but there is no "Nominate for deletion" in it. How do I get that button? Shabratha (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think ww2censor is thinking of Commons where nominate for deletion is a tools button, but it isn't on Wikipedia (unless someone has developed a userscript that you can install). You could enable through your special:preferences page Twinkle which does include easy deletion nomination or you can do it manually.  I have to say that as an admin, who spends a lot of time looking at image nomination deletion requests, I (personally) wouldn't delete these as speedy copyright violation deletions.  I think your points have a lot of merit to them but they don't meet the requirements of being established as Unambiguous copyright infringements and I would suggest you nominate them all for deletion at Files for deletion where others can offer their opinion before a decision is reached. Nthep (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually I have the buttons when viewing enwiki images as well as commons images but you may well be correct that is a function of the Twinkle settings. It's been too long to recall such setup details, but thanks. I have to agree these are not speedy deletion images but require some discussion and for that purpose I have posted a request on both the Airports and Video games projects to come here and comment. Maybe there are others we can ask because this is not a clearcut argument without some more expert input. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Its a good spot by Shabratha. They are either video game/simulator/Google Earth photos. Aerial photos stretched over a bumpy surface. As a test for yourselves. Go and look at 20 or 30 aerial photos on Commons, then come back here and look at these again. Then smell that rat. - X201 (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ww2censor Agreed it needs further input but not here. WP:FFD is the correct forum and someone needs to nominate these images for deletion there, then the discussion can continue. Nthep (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on User:X201s statement, I have to agree. Can we put them all in one deletion nom? Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they can be bundled into one nomination. See the process at FFD. Nthep (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a "deletion nom"?
 * 1. The pictures are against copyright. I couldn't find any way to fix the pictures so I went to Help.
 * 2. There was nothing on the main help page so I tried to search.
 * 3. Help search was broken, so i asked on the helptalk page.
 * 4. Instead of helping, people just agreed that Help search was broken.
 * 5. I went to FAQ but FAQ search is broken too.
 * 6. Somebody said I should try "beta search". Beta search sent me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems but that says «Image copyright concerns are not handled on this board». That page sent me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD instead.
 * 7. Nobody is told in advance to use the search that works. First they use the search that doesn't work, that is default, then if they find the right place to complain, then they might be told to use the search that does work.
 * 8. Somebody said https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD is not the right place for this problem.
 * 9. Apparently there are buttons to delete them but I don't have those buttons.
 * 10. I explained here why the pictures are against copyright but now that isn't enough and we have to explain again somewhere else.
 * 11. Now you say the best place is FFD but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FFD says «V.Suspected copyright violations shouldn't be listed here». Why should I waste my time doing the same thing there?
 * This isn't an encyclopedia, this is a big machine designed to waste people's time. Shabratha (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

An encyclopedia with a paid staff wouldn't have copyright issues like this at all, but since Wikipedia is run entirely by volunteers and anyone can upload files, there are also certain caveats when it comes to deleting stuff (i.e. deletions need community approval which is sought on specific boards). Actually you need to go to Possibly unfree files. There are three steps explained on that page which describe the default procedure for single files. But since you've discovered a whole lot of problematic files you might want to present them all in one single section. So, please do the following:
 * 1) Add   to each file page (replace that date if needed).
 * 2) Go to the last date section at the bottom of Possibly unfree files and add a new level 4 section heading  and describe why the photos should be deleted. You may also want to link to this discussion.
 * 3) Inform the uploader Prasannatb of the new deletion discussion at WP:PUF. De728631 (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that as a rule it is better to teach new users how to do things and not deprive them of the experience by doing it in their place before they get a chance to do it themselves, unless they ask. However, in this case, I interpret the last comment of Shabratha as a clear plea for help to the effect of "Please, could an experienced user now take it from here and complete the procedure?" -- Asclepias (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can understand how they feel, I've been here years and still dread having to do anything regarding images, the whole image guidelines and admin section of WP is a never ending rabbit warren, with no page containing black and white answers. We could do with an images page at Pump or Helpdesk, manned by people who can point others directly to what they need. - X201 (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Asclepias, I've been thinking the same I've now moved the original deletion request to WP:PUF. De728631 (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, these are particularly difficult and maybe not even for the reasons anyone is going to think of. For one, we need the data source for the texture, geometry and rendering source identified. If the texture came from a resource like USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), then they are public domain, so then the RAW texture would be ok. But if the texture has been treated, then we've got derivative use copyright attribution in play from that angle. Add to that terrain geometry that the texture is applied to. This could also be from a public domain data set but the person one who combined the texture with the geometry and rendered it would have a derivative use copyright attribution in play as well. If everything was public domain but the screen shots were made from Google Earth or some flight sim then that's derivative use and almost certainly has been manipulated by a 3rd party for derivative use. There's a percentage chance that these images are ok, but they need way more details of their origin provided before any kind of distinction can be made. Sadly, it's probably most likely that someone just took screen grabs from a piece of software and uploaded them, and in that case it's almost certainly a copyright violation at some level. I would vote for removing all of them to be safe. BcRIPster (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Undated images

 * Category:Wikipedia_files_with_no_date

Some assistance either in dating these, or getting them replaced with confirmed sate images would be appreciated.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Updating an entry with a company's updated logo
Hello, I'd like to update the entry for this college: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Community_and_Technical_College

The college's logo on the entry is outdated. Am I allowed to upload the logo using my Wikipedia and use that file to update the college's page?

Thanks! ElizabethSW (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Liz
 * If you go to the file location at File:Mctclogo.png you will see "Upload a new version of this file" - the option is located near the bottom of the page. -- Moxy (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth, you will not be able to upload the file. Only confirmed users have the ability to upload files.  To become confirmed you need to make at least ten edits and have an account over 96 hours old.  Right now you have 2 edits and your account is about an hour and a half old, so you will have a while to go before you are confirmed.  You can request the file be uploaded at files for upload.  GB fan 18:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth, if you mean this logo I can upload it for you. De728631 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Artwork possibly in the public domain
I've been trying to determine whether an image I found online belongs to the public domain, see http://exploringartstyles.yolasite.com/industrial-revolution.php. I am inclined to believe the painting is by Gustave Courbet, but have not found anything that explicitly says so. Can I get some help identifying the author and the copyright status of this artwork. Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt Courbet. Goggle has links for this image to http://www.netnicholls.com, but I couldn't find it on their site. Does look British Realist to me. I suggest you email the original site - not crediting their artwork is pretty naff. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was unable to obtain an email address. Can the painting still be uploaded to the commons? Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did a search with TinEye and found something quite interesting. This is "Borsig's Maschinenbauanstalt" (Borsig's engine factory) by Karl Eduard Biermann (d. 1892). This industrial plant is reportedly quite iconic for the history of Berlin. According to this article in Die Welt, the painting had been on loan to a Berlin museum from the Borsig family for decades and was exhibited there until it was transferred to another museum in 2007. In the end, it was sold at an auction for € 245k to a consoortium of Ernst Siemens Cultural Foundation and the Stadtmuseum of Berlin.


 * Apart from that, this is already at Commons as File:Borsig 1847.jpg. De728631 (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Amazing edit conflict. I was just about to post the following. Well done De728631!


 * Up to you . It would take a certain je ne sais quoi to upload a painting whose provenance and creator you know nothing about. Pretty sure it's not Courbet, but no expert there. British or American realist I would say. I can see your interest. It's a very fine painting. I've often been frustrated looking for the source of images I come across. That's why I always encourage people to include the Alt description field when uploading an image, though I confess to being hopelessly remiss about that myself.  In the grey matter database. If I come across it I'll look this out and put a note on your Talk page. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since we're talking Berlin and industrial scenes, you might like to glance at this splendid 1920 Hans Baluschek painting - likely to become a Featured Picture on Wikipedia. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not much of an expert in fine arts but that Baluschek painting is in fact astonishing. You can almost feel the gloomy atmosphere of that city. De728631 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, new to me as well. It's over at Featured picture candidates, where I like to contribute and where you are very welcome. TinEye also new to me. I shall explore that. Thanks so much. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * De728631, I tip my hat to you sir. Your research skills are truly amazing! I've spent hours scouring the internet through Google and came empty-handed. Thank you for introducing me to TinEye. Coat of Many Colours, that painting is fascinating; I look forward to seeing it as a featured picture. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're using Firefox, there's also an add-on for TinEye which I highly recommend. De728631 (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Chrome has one too. And FWIW, I do find TinEye a bit better for trying to track down an image's original publication given how it presents results compared to Google's current image search. --M ASEM  (t) 18:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Information
I uploaded an on July 11th, 2014. I also included the website from where it was taken. But, there was no author name except for this at the end of the webpage:

"This site is non-commercial and is not an official or representative web presence for any of the actors or movies listed. All images and text are the property of their respective owners. Do not link directly to any of the images on this site - please upload them to your own webspace, on the understanding that yours is also a non-commercial site. "

It is said that the file is uploaded with the wrong license. What should I do? King Cobra (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We can't use photos of living persons unless they have explicitely been released under a free licence by the photographer. The statement on that website does not relate anything about the intentions of the copyright holder nor can it be verified that the uploader there was the actual photographer. The website also allows distribution of their content only for non-commercial purposes, but free images uploaded at Wikipedia must have a licence for commmercial reuse. I have therefore deleted the image as a copyright infringement per the speedy deletion criteria. De728631 (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Updating my wikipedia page photo
I am simply trying to update the photo of me on my wikipedia page, which someone else created, unbeknownst to me. However, the file keeps getting removed, and I don't fully understand why. The images I uploaded were given to me by the photographer for my unrestricted use, and the legalese about uploading files I find difficult to understand. Can someone please help me resolve this nagging issue? All I want is an up-to-date photo on the page! Thank you, Helen SungHayrenis (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * From your prior photo that was deleted, you had marked it with a non-free license; as Wikipedia's goal is to promote free content, we do not allow photos of living persons since a free version can be taken. As you have now uploaded it with a free license, that should not be an issue. However, we would ask that you have your photographer send an email to the Open Ticket Request System to state that he/she has given the photos for a free license, as outlined at WP:CONSENT. While they can verbally tell you that the photos can be used that way, they remain the copyright holder, and thus we just need to have their clearance to use them, which is what will be tracked in the Ticket system. (That will satisfy the "proof of license" that you uploaded the newer version with). --M ASEM (t) 13:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Another problem is that someone else is claims to be the author of one photo. The photo File:Helen Sung Jazz Pianist.jpg, which you uploaded 12 July 2014, is the same photo as File:Helen Sung.jpg, which was previously in the article and which was uploaded 23 January 2011 by Alice Griffin, who claims to be the author. However, Ms. Griffin wrote in the caption in the article that the photo was from 2009 although the Exif data shows 2007. I din't find this photo on the website of Ella Gahnt, where Ms. Gahnt seems to post some of her own photos and photos taken by other people. If Ms. Gahnt sends the confirmation telling clearly that she took this photo, we'll take her word for it. Do you by any chance remember the circumstance when the photo was taken and specifically remember that it was taken by Ms. Ghant? Then maybe someone should ask Ms. Griffin to comment. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia files with disputed copyright information
This is currently very severely backlogged owing to some template changes to cope with URAA restorations.

It would be appreciated if some experienced contributors helped reduce it. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up URAA restorations
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Not-PD-US-URAA&limit=250&hidelinks=1

Ideally ALL the Files linked here should have non-free license tags and NFUR. (I've also in the interests of having clear copyright status on items, been commenting out the original PD tag, once it has the apprropriate non-free boiler plate and rationale.)

The assistance of the contributors here would be appreciated in making the number of links to the template concerned 0. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

NREL maps in the public domain?
I've come across wind maps produced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. I have seen seen other NREL maps on the Commons but what to verify that these can be hosted there. According to the NREL disclaimer:


 * "NREL-authored documents are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC36-08GO28308. Accordingly, with respect to such documents, the U.S. Government and others acting on its behalf retain a paid-up nonexclusive, irrevocable world-wide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly, by or on behalf of the Government. Use of documents available from or referenced by this server may be subject to U.S. and foreign Copyright Laws."

Said contract states that:


 * "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this clause, all records acquired or generated by the contractor in its performance of this contract shall be the property of the Government and shall be delivered to the Government or otherwise disposed of by the contractor either as the contracting officer may from time to time direct during the progress of the work or, in any event, as the contracting officer shall direct upon completion or termination of the contract."

Are these maps in the public domain? Ajaxfiore (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The US national labs, which include NREL, are not direct agencies of the US Gov't (that would be Battelle for NREL), and as such, works from these labs are assumed copyrighted and no PD-USgov. That said, the raw data they collected is not copyrightable, and they provide links to GIS links for such data, so it would be possible to create a free image of the same information (you might need to talk to the Graphics Lab for help there.) --M ASEM (t) 18:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it seems they're not providing any raw data at all. The GIS shapefiles offered through that link on the map site are non-trivial software output and even the "wind speed potential" or "wind resource estimates" shown in the maps are not raw data but have been processed from raw wind measurements by some algorithm developped by a company called AWS Truepower. So I'm not sure we can recreate any maps from the material offered by NREL. De728631 (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, if they've done treatment of the data, then yes, a free image can't easily be made. Given that, its still then possible to use the graphs under non-free use - I don't know the situation, but I do easily see cases of where this can be justified under NFC. --M ASEM (t) 22:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am able to see the maps at http://maps.nrel.gov/wind_prospector with a disclaimer stating that
 * "Access to and use of these Data shall impose the following obligations on the user, as set forth in this Agreement. The user is granted the right, without any fee or cost, to use, copy, modify, alter, enhance and distribute these Data for any purpose whatsoever, provided that this entire notice appears in all copies of the Data. Further, the user agrees to credit DOE/NREL/Alliance in any publication that results from the use of these Data."
 * But I am guessing this only applies to the data, not to the graphics themselves. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Post by anon
1. A Johnny Williams is chatting with me and says he works with you- Facebook. He says i won a Facebook competition,  healthy monetary prize and needs personal details...... True ?

2. a woman with my same name Diana Busuttil but has (Kody Shanaia) added to hers and is from Il-Hamrun Malta .... Can She use the same name as mine ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.11.103.187 (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not the venue for discussing personal matters. This board is for copyright questions concerning Wikipedia content only. You might want to try the Reference desk though. De728631 (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Are images from the 1800s in an old book still copyrighted?
I've wondered this for a while, and it may well be that the answer is out there somewhere but I've missed it if so. I have a book published in 1933 which contains images dating from the early 1800s or even earlier. If I scanned these images are they out of copyright and thus uploadable, or could they still be somehow copyrighted? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain" as decided by the New York District Court in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (see COM:PDARTREUSE and COM:PDART). So if these images are indeed as old as you say they are, there should be no problem. Out of curiosity, what is the title of the book? Ajaxfiore (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of that, please make sure that when you do scan and upload, you identify the book, printing, and page number of what you scanned, just in case we have to review the issue later. As Ajaxfiore notes, scans of anything from the early 1800s is near assuredly in the PD, though there could be some edge cases but I would not worry about those at this time; having the book reference would let us chase those down if that actually turns out to be a problem. --M ASEM (t) 18:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I'll link them here when I've uploaded them (probably tomorrow when I have access to the book again). The book is Short History of the Observatory of the University at Leiden by Willem de Sitter. It contains a number of nice drawings of Leiden Observatory from 1600-1800. Sam Walton (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem, Ajaxfiore, I've uploaded the first image here. If you think the tagging is alright I'll go ahead and upload a few more. Thanks. Sam Walton (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. If possible, please identify the photographer. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Best and Most Restrictive Method to add article images - NOT portraits of people
Confirmed user here. I would like to add some photographs to the "Annapurna (Himalayan mountain)" article. I have contacted various people on the internet requesting use of certain photos - and I've received some preliminary consents. What I'd like to do is add some of these people's images in the way that most protects their rights - and makes clear their copyright ownership of said photos. I've read up on CC-BY-SA and GFDL licensing here, and have visited this Wikipedia user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:R._Baley/Acquire_a_free_image - which seems to be an excellent step-by-step guide for adding images to Wikimedia Commons.

However - this guide seems to specifically deal with a photo of a living person.

My situation is somewhat different. From this guide, I see that photos of living persons require special steps, as it should be. However, the photos I'd like to upload are strictly landscape photos - with no persons in them. Asking people to allow use of their intellectual property on Wikipedia is a dodgy endeavor, and I'd like to be able to assure the people I've solicited photos from that any photos used on Wikipedia will be as protected as possible.

Would there be an advantage (assuming it's possible) for me to go with the "Restricted Rights" image uploaded ONLY to Wikipedia to support the article?

Looking for advice from an expert here. Sorry, after a considerable amount of research I'm still not clear on the best way to accomplish what I'd like to accomplish.

One specific question: Can I place an unobtrusive watermark identifier somewhere on the photos I choose to post? Something like: "Copyright John Doe. Use governed by CC-BY-SA and GFDL." - or something to that effect? I'm thinking that in addition to best protecting the original owner's rights, this would clearly identify the original copyright owner instead of crediting myself - I would only want to upload the pics, not claim any kind of intellectual ownership of them.

In summary: How best to protect image copyright owners rights - to the largest extent possible? How best to insure that copyright owners get credit rather than uploaders?

Thanks in advance - Big Lew 01:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Sheen (talk • contribs)


 * If they are landscape photos of places that anyone can within reason to get to, then the images need to be under a free license (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or public domain), as any more restrictive copyrighted images can be replaced with a possible free one.
 * Now, it sounds like you are trying to get these up as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, both which require reuse to attribute back to the original creator which is good. As long as these people are fine with those licenses, that's great, we can use the photos, but we need to have the photographers themselves, the ones that own the copyright, email the Open Ticket Request System to express their consent for us to use their photos in the CC-BY/CC-BY-SA manner. This is a process (with a pre-made form letter) at WP:CONSENT. Once they have done that and have an OTRS case number, you can upload the files as free images with the appropriate licenses (it will depend on what is set by the photographer but it will be one listed here: Category:Creative Commons copyright templates), crediting the photographer as necessary with Information template, and that should be good. You can be the uploader and do all the legwork short of the consent email. --M ASEM  (t) 01:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Masem. I understand about getting the originator's consent - but I appreciate your clarification of the process here.


 * Apologies - I just found the answer to my "watermarking" question on the "Wikipedia: Image Use Policies" page. Watermarks not allowed in this case.


 * Big Lew 01:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Sheen (talk • contribs)


 * One further point Masem: Actually these photos are of the North Face of Annapurna, which is very rarely visited due to the remoteness and extreme difficulty of reaching the place where such photos can be taken. These are not a seashore photos, nor photos of mountains that are easily taken. They would be, in fact, rare photos - I have done hours of research on the web and turned up only a very few (a dozen or so) publicly available photos of the view that I'm interested in. Big Lew 01:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Sheen (talk • contribs)
 * Assuming we're talking photos that could only be taken as part of a dangerous/threatening climb, then yes, this would be a case we'd allow photos under non-free use (though we'd have to be able to make sure we can justify their use) We would still not allow watermarks on them, but that would retain the copyright in the strongest manner for the photographers. --M ASEM (t) 02:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Company Logo
Dear Sir, Mam,

Are we eligible to use a logo of company in its article page in Wikipedia?

best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atousaaris (talk • contribs) 09:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Atousaaris, welcome to Wikipedia! A company logo is usually allowed in an article about the company, according to the non-free content policy. There are two points you need to keep in mind, though: First, it must be an, not a draft or a sandbox; second, it should be at a low resolution.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Uploads by Mystia Loreli
A number of these have sourcing issues. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mystia_Lorelei#File_source_problem_with_File:ROCS_Shen_Yang.jpg

PD in the US or not? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

TERRYS CHRYSSOS SINGER
HOW  CAN I  APLOUYID  MY  PIC  I AM  THE SINGER  TERRYS CHRYSSOS  OR IN  GREEK  ΤΕΡΗΣ ΧΡΥΣΟΣ PLEASE LET  ME  KNOW  THE  EASY  WAY  THENK YOU  TERRYS CHRYSSOS  GREEK POP  SINEG  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ΤΕΡΗΣ ΧΡΥΣΟΣ (talk • contribs) 14:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, ΤΕΡΗΣ ΧΡΥΣΟΣ. If it's a photo that you, then it's not so simple, because someone else took it and therefore owns the copyright to it. If the photo was taken by a friend or someone you know personally, tell them to follow the instructions on donating copyrighted materials. If it was taken by a professional photographer, it most likely can't be uploaded because of licensing issues.   Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Violation by Reproducing Figure in Paper
I would like to produce a Wikipedia figure that will look nearly identical to one in a published scientific article (Figure 1 here). The figure itself is an unrooted phylogenetic tree which uses 143 public domain genetic sequences. There is an example of a similar figure  but in that case it was released by the paper authors under CC license. If I use the same 143 public domain genetic sequences as the original paper, the output image from a phylogenetic tree program will look very similar to the copyrighted image. Would using this image be a copyright violation to use? Of course the original authors would be cited, but I feel it's not that simple. Ceing (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This does appear to be uncopyrightable data though their figure (how they present it) is copyrightable. You should be able to recreate the basic idea (the branching relations) in your own manner. You may want to look to the Graphics Lab not so much on the drawing advice but to get ideas how to make sure you aren't creating a derivative work of what their figure presentation looks like. --M ASEM (t) 14:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! If I made an original figure that is sufficiently different. Would I still cite the original authors of that figure or would that no longer be necessary? Ceing (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely cite the source of the data (assuming that the PD data is different from the paper), and I would recommend including the original paper as a source for the concept of the figure. --M ASEM (t) 14:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Metro freecitybus logo.png
Simple enough for PD-textlogo? Useddenim (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Same as File:FreeCityBus.svg --Sreejith K (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If not PD-textlogo, both may be better to be listed as PD-ineligible-USonly. The files were made in the United Kingdom and the UK has a much stricter level for the threshold of originality for copyright. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Earth Awakens Cover Help
Would the image from this site be acceptable to use for the "Earth Awakens" article? http://www.risingshadow.net/library/book/43167-earth-awakens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.47.44 (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would appear to meet the allowance for cover art under WP:NFCI. --M ASEM (t) 15:54,

Paul Nicholson ( Darts Player)
Can I upload a picture of him for his infobox.
 * Only if you own the copyright, or if the copyright holder releases it under a free license. (See WP:CONSENT). Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

premier chirsty clark
hi premier chirsty clark

there right to get marry down syndrome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.54.45 (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are confused about where to ask a question. Here is for copyright questions. Perhaps you could ask at Reference desk/miscellaneous, but it does sound like a legal advice question whech we cannot deal with here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What is this for? Shabratha (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Shabratha This page is about image copyrights, image tagging, non-free content, and related media questions. ///Euro Car  GT  17:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Transit agency & transit service logo
Greetings folks! Would like to have some opinions on 2 logos, the logos are: http://www.upexpress.com/images/logoUP_en.jpg and File:Metrolinx logo.png do they meet TOO? I've read commons:Commons:Threshold_of_originality and Originality in Canadian copyright law (where these logos originate from), however they don't provide examples therefore not useful. ///Euro Car GT  03:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that Canadian copyright with respect to TOO is extremely similar to US copyright with respect to TOO. That being said, my only concerns would be the UP (not standardized and doesn't seem like a font) and the shape around the "M" which isn't made of simple shapes. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll upload it locally then. ///Euro Car  GT  20:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictures
How do I upload a photo that I took for private use and have not published anywhere?
 * If you took the photo and are the original copyright holder, you can upload the file under a free license at commons:Special:UploadWizard by going through the upload wizard. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

copyright on image?
hi, can i use this image or is it copyrighted? thank you! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ojo_de_Dios#mediaviewer/File:Ojo_de_dios_anaroza.jpg 83.41.172.69 (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there - all images on the Wikimedia Commons allow for free re-use, though many do have the requirement of attribution and/or sharing the image under the exact same license if edited. You can see a file's licensing information by going to the file's description page and looking at the information beneath the "Licensing" section. This particular image is licensed under CC-BY 2.0, which basically means you're free to use the image, even commercially, as long as you attribute the author of the work (which in this case, is Anaroza at Flickr). Hope this helps, ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 16:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Free to use images
I uploaded images to Wikimedia Commons. They are from a website that states: they are free to use them as long as you credit the photographer. Because the site doesn't state anything about making derivatives and spreading the files, the files are listed at deletion requests. (see here). But because it's allowed to use the images, can I upload them to Wikipedia? Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because they are free to use them as long as you credit the photographer is not a broad enough license to match our rather stringent licensing requirements. Sorry. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  12:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If the photographer were the uploader, it would be OK, because then the copyright holder would be the person who put Attribution on the file. But since the copyright holder is two steps away from Commons, we need to make sure that the copyright holder really allows modifications and copying, even by commercial organizations.  (People still have personality rights, so they can't be used personally to endorse a product or cause; but that doesn't affect Commons.) --Closeapple (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if the photographer was the uploader, we would need them to assure they have used a specific license (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, PD, or a few other choices) to be allowed at Commons. --M ASEM (t) 18:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've sent the team an email with the question or to expand the sentence on the website or to give us approval for using the files in the 'commons way'. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You may want to read over WP:CONSENT to show how to document the photographer's approval if this is the route that you end up taking. --M ASEM (t) 17:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Cee Ads
The Website for Cee Ads includes a logo at the top of the page, and a copyright claim at the bottom (“Copyright CeeAds Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved”). That logo has been uploaded to Wikipedia at File:CEEADS Advertising Firm Logo.JPG and described as “own work”. Even if the individual editor who uploaded the image is the artist who produced the logo for the company (which is unverified), is there still a question of individual ownership vs. corporate ownership? Unician &nabla; 11:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article for which this was intended, CeeAds, has been deleted for lack of notability, so the image is now out of scope, so can be tagged for deletion no matter who owns the copyright. Normally we would expect this to be used under a non-free claim and not uploaded to the commons as this has been, so I have nominated it for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's what I suspected. Unician &nabla; 04:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How to Delete an Upload?
Dear Sirs,

I was trying to learn how to upload a photo. I thought that I was going to be doing such on my "Sandbox" page. The next thing I know is that I actually uploaded the photo to Wikipedia itself!

As I am not sure of copyright issues just yet regarding the photo, I need to find out how to delete my upload, please. Again, I was just trying to learn how to upload, and not actually do it.

I did look and look on the uploaded image page to see how I could undo what I did, but alas.

I'm so sorry to bother you with this.

Please advise. Thanks in advance!

Rob

The name of my image in my personal files is "B-50 (1950s-Biggs AFB)

File:B-50 (1950s-Biggs AFB).jpg

BeatlesVox (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Only admins can delete files or articles. You can request deletion by following the instructions at WP:CSD specifically WP:CSD. I've gone ahead and deleted it for you under that criteria.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)