Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/April

Adding a company logo to an article infobox
I am presently writing an article about a bank and would like to add the bank's logo to the infobox. I have all the necessary clearance from the bank to use the logo for the article. I believe I should upload it as non-free content but I'm checking whether I should take any additional steps to ensure full compliance with Wikipedia rules.

David Herrera 1985 (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * - Assuming this is for Nemea Bank, the logo will probably be non-free, unless you can get clearance from an OTRS ticket that the image has a compatible free licence (which it almost certainly isn't), or if the logo is simple text and geometric shapes that doesn't meet the threshold of originality (eg: File:Microsoft logo (2012).svg) - but I think this logo's Maltese Cross design just fails that.
 * You must ensure the bank's article exists (ie: it has been accepted at AfC), and the infobox is ready and waiting to receive the article. The image should then be no bigger than necessary to fit in the infobox (generally less than 200 pixels in all dimensions), and when you upload, you must ensure you give a non-free rationale of "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The bank is unlikely to allow the image to be freely licenced and usually such logos are permitted under our non-free policy but only as an identifier in the infobox of an article about that organisation. Just make sure to upload the logo after the article is in mainspace and also use and fill out the following templates logo fur and Non-free logo (click on the links to see details) per this example. ww2censor (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your feedback. Yes the article is about Nemea Bank and this is the logo which I would like to add. I had initially added the logo to Wikipedia Commons but it was deleted on the basis that it doesn't meet the threshold of originality. This is why I'm not sure whether to add it as non-free or otherwise. As you pointed out, this is only for use in the infobox. Thanks again for all your support. David Herrera 1985 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If Commons has deleted it (and assuming it's not a basic problem with missing licence data) then it's definitely non-free! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

, thanks I will add the logo using logo fur and Non-free logo. Thanks again for all your guidance on this matter. David Herrera 1985 (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Ktmb_logo.svg
Simple enough for or ? Useddenim (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

invisible bird
File:Invisible bird.jpg was based on File:HabroptilaWallaciiWolf but I'm not sure how to properly cite it. Could someone help? --Naytz (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a skeleton information template to File:Invisible bird.jpg with a reference to File:HabroptilaWallaciiWolf.jpg. Please add description and author info to the template. Add also a license tag. —teb728 t c 21:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Image Use on Wiki Page
Sir,I would like to add the image http://www.indussource.com/images/authors/Balachandran.jpg to be used on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vappala_Balachandran The license info stated on the website where the image is hosted reads as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Should this be uploaded to Commons or to Wikipedia.Kindly help.Might there be anyone here who could do this for me? Thank You.Rama2015 (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to tell you that the licence you specify is not allowed on Wikipedia or Commons which require images to be available for commercial use and derivatives must also be allowed. See File copyright tags Also, to assure that the image is licensed suitably, either the website should show how the image is licensed, not on the image itself but on a page including the image, or you can email permission in the way described here. However, I suggest a website licence is the easier way to go and this is also described in tthe document I've just linked to. Best wishes and I hope you can arrange all this. Thincat (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)at

How to Tag an Image from National Archives
At my request I received a photocopy of a WWII Prisoner of War Labor Report from the U.S. National Archives. The National Archives did not tell me the report's copyright status, but I assume it is in the public domain. I then scanned it as a pdf file and submitted it as a posting to an existing article in Wikipedia. The editors are rejecting it because it does not yet have a source tag or copyright tag. What are the appropriate tags for the pdf image and how do I insert them? Recordsmgr (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is File:POW Camp 1946-02-12.pdf you are referring to, then the normal way of uploading things is the File Upload Wizard. You are then asked for the relevant details and, after saying it is a free work, public domain, you can say US Federal Government, if that is correct. I think the author is US War Department. It may be easier to upload again using the wizard, under a slightly different name, letting the present image get deleted. Thincat (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Why reupload it? It took me just a few minutes to fix it. ww2censor (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But how could you explain to someone what to do? Is there a way of invoking the wizard on an existing image? Thincat (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well this was quite easy because it is a US goverment document, so we know it is in the public domain. Add the information template to the document and fill in all the fields. That info was already there. Now ee can use a generic PD-USGov licence template but should see if there is a specific one for that department (refer to File copyright tags/USA), but there is none for this department, so just use that one. Was that simple or not? Click on the template links for fuller details. Other countries and images types may be more difficult. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and tag it move to commons because then if can be used in other wikis. ww2censor (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Tag
I forgot to put indicate the license status on an album artwork, but I'm not sure which tag I should use to show the copyright. Also, I'm not sure where I should indicate it, in the summary right? This is the first time I've forgotten to add the license, I screwed up when I was uploading the image and the license just slipped my mind. Sorry for the mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platypus1375 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the tag with this edit. —teb728 t c 01:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright related - Michiel Huisman's page
I have asked the permission from Sunny Khahera (the photographer) https://instagram.com/sunnykhaheraphotography/ to able to use this picture of Michiel Huisman: https://instagram.com/p/0tN8D3Gn8E/?taken-by=sunnykhaheraphotography on Michiel's Wikipedia page. If I am granted the persmission to use this photo on Wikipedia, where do I have to go to upload it from there onto Wikipedia? I assume I have to have some sort of proof that I was allowed to use it, or will the email response from him simply cut it? Please help me! Sebahed (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The requirements are rather bureaucratic, I'm afraid. The copyright holder should send an email in the way described at Donating copyrighted materials at the paragraph starting "For images" or it may be possible to indicate the licence on the website in the way I suggested on the question immediately following this one. Good luck! Thincat (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One other thing: Permission for use on Wikipedia is not enough. Wikipedia requires permission for reuse by anyone for anything. —teb728 t c 01:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Covers of Montrose's albums
Hi, could you transfer these 2 covers on commons: File:Montrose-PaperMoney.jpg and File:Montrose-mean.jpg? These files seems to consist of simple text and don't meet the threshold of originality.--Tenebroso (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

UK Death Certificates?
Anyone know whether it's OK to upload British death certificates to a Wikipedia biography if the person died over 50 years ago? There's an information sheet about this on the UK National Archives site, but I'm still not sure about the Wikipedia situation after reading through this document. Muzilon (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Reading the guidance, I don't see a copyright problem in uploading a UK death certificate especially if it is over 50 years old. Use of the image licence tag PD-UKGov would suffice.  As for complying with the Data Protection Act e.g. revealing the identity of the informant, then if they are deceased no problem.  If they are still alive or it is unknown whether they are dead then I would think that the  information about them is best blanked out before uploading.


 * As an aside - I am not sure that an image of the death certificate would add to the article, it can be used as a reference without actually uploading it. MilborneOne (talk)
 * Well, there are plenty of celebrity birth/death certificates on Wikipedia: Charles Dickens, Michael Jackson, President Obama, Marilyn Monroe, etc. Muzilon (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Use a file from the german upload site
Hello, I would like a company logo from the German Wikipedia link into an English article. Unfortunately, the logo is not displayed. What is wrong. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypovereinsbank https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:UniCredit_Bank_AG_HypoVereinsbank_Logo_2010.svg&filetimestamp=20120312090402& https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HypoVereinsbank Thanks for your help and best regards from Germany --Sommer1986 (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no ability to display interwiki images, only local and commons images can be used. Because it is a copyright logo you will have to upload it here as a non-free image with the appropriate information so long as it complies will all 10 non-free media policy guidelines and that it is being used as the identifying logo in the infobox of the company article. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

How to find out if an image is copyrighted.
Hi Wikipedia users,

I'm fairly new in Wikipedia, and I would like to upload images for several biography pages as they lack an picture showing the person. However, I'm not sure if any image I find is copyrighted or not and I don't want to violate any rules. Is there a good way to find out if an image is copyrighted?

Thank you,

Winsonwinsoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winsonwinsoff (talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:COPYOTHERS. As a general rule, an image is likely to be copyright unless there is an explicit statement that it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If the people in question are living, then we are limited to using photos which are freely licensed, . The presumption is that someone could take a freely licensed photo sometime, even if we don't have one at the moment. If, however, any of the people have died, and no freely licensed images are available, then we can use a low resolution non-free image of the person, ideally one which is a well known image of that person. The image needs to be uploaded here on Wikipedia for use in only one article. Please read WP:NFCI #10 for details. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

MSS logo
Hi, I was wondering if the logo of the Merseyside Skeptics Society meets the threshold of originality. The design of File:Merseyside Skeptics Society.png seems to be simple enough for it to be transferred to Commons. If so, I could use it in the Dutch page as well. What do you reckon? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My guess is that in the UK it may qualify for copyright but I don't know and other people will have no doubt that it does/does not meet the UK commons:commons:Threshold of originality. If you transfer it to Commons it will most likely be deleted here and on Commons as well. So, why not upload a copy to nlwp and see what happens, maybe nominating it for deletion yourself? Thincat (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As I understand it for you to use this image on the nlwiki would require the image to be freely licenced in the Netherlands and c:Commons:Threshold of originality would likely consider this a free image but you would be better advised to refer to the nlwiki policy on non-free works as I am not familiar with Dutch copyright law in any more detail than the commons pages show as well as Copyright law of the Netherlands. ww2censor (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. Unlike enwp, nlwp does not allow for uploading images; it has no separate database, all its images come from Commons. One could only use the MSS logo on nlwp if it was on Commons. I suppose it's not original enough because everyone knows what a thought bubble is (which makes the symbol unoriginal), and the image merely consists of a black rectangle with curved corners, two perfect black circles and standard white letters; anyone could make that up or imitate it. Where would be the right place for me to discuss a transfer? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. You could transfer it to Commons on the basis that it is too simple but, unless you tag the image here with keep local then it may well be deleted here as a duplicate of an image on Commons and deleted on Commons if it is thought not too simple under UK law. That would be OK except the keep local tag has always been controversial and its use is being discussed right now at WT:CSD. Thincat (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer your last question. WP:NFCR is where you can nominate an image for "Discussing whether a non-free file should be treated as free (possibly public domain or uncopyrightable)". If there is consensus that the image is free then it could be transferred to Commons and, if it is deleted there, there would be a strong case for undeletion here. The problem is that in the UK the High Court found File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg to be copyright. My own, highly personal, view is that this was a finding "on the very particular facts of the case" because the firm doing the copying had behaved in an egregiously unethical manner and the judge had no sympathy with them. One US court described the legal complaints as "trolling" (remarkably enough!). All the same, this case has dominated Commons discussion of UK logos. Even under UK law use on Wikipedia would be accepted as "fair dealing" but Commons policy forbids such considerations. Thincat (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think Thincat's comments about UK law are somewhat diversionary and not really very helpful because UK law does not apply. Netherlands law, and US law because that is where the servers are, applies and based on what I read this can be claimed to be a simple logo in the Netherlands. Additionally, what you are saying is the nlwiki does not allow non-free images which is why only freely licenced commons images are allowed. You could upload it to the commons, as opposed to moving it from here to there, and licence it as PD with a PD-textlogo template. I would not challenge it there. Assuming it is not challenged, then the enwiki image could be deleted and replaced with the commons image. If you want to discuss it prior to uploading at the commons, you should use this page c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Commons interpretation of UK law will be applied because commons:commons:Licensing says "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are ... in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." and I suppose UK is the source country. (However, I was indeed digressing!). Thincat (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips everyone. I uploaded it here. If no one complains, I suppose the case is settled, and the enwp file can be deleted and replaced by this one. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Carnival glass photo's
I tried to ask this on the Wikimedia commons page, but havent gotten an answer. I know the Wikipedia upload is septate. But on the Wikimedia commons it has a stipulation of talking photos of art less than 150 years old. The question I have is about Art Glass. I am editing a few articles on Glass manufacturers. I would like to add a few photos taken by me of pieces in my own collection and add them to the articles. Would this violate any copyrights? I dont think so, but I am asking to avoid problems. AlbinoFerret 16:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You can licence your own photos freely but for something like art glass, as opposed to utilitarian glass, designed by an artist would be considered as fine art in the same way as sculptures and not as applied art. Your images will be derivative works so you will only be constrained by the death date of the artist which for most European countries is 70 years pma per c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory. I'm not sure where you got the 150 year term from. Can you point to that page? This page might also be helpful. BTW, I should point out that ownership of an item does not confer any rights to the copyright of the item. ww2censor (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I got it from the Wikimedia site, where they have answered. The pieces in question do not carry copyright marks or notices, and are from companies that closed in 1931 and 1925. So they are under the old copyright system which should place them in the public domain, or so I get from the answer I have now received from Wikimedia commons. AlbinoFerret  18:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-free license vs free license
I've reviewed comments in the FAQs and I'm somewhat confused about non-free license vs. free license use because there appears to be contradicting statements. So my questions is does a visual artist have a limit on the number of non-free license of copyrighted artwork per article? And if yes, what is the max. For instance, can they create a gallery of artwork of 6 to 7 images. Ownyouridea (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)ownyouridea
 * Generally, non-free artwork may only be used for contextual significance, i.e. even an article about a visual artists should use non-free works very sparingly to demonstrate their artistic techniques or to show a specifically notable work which is treated by the article. We're not allowed to create galleries of non-free content for the mere purpose of illustrating an article. And while there is no specific limit, we are supposed to keep the use of non-free content to a minimum. Every non-free image used in an article needs to be weighed against its purpose within that article, namely whether it helps the reader to understand what could not be conveyed by text alone. That said, we also need a specific fair use rationale for each such image that is uploaded to Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

My name is East Side Dave. I am a radio personality on Wikipedia.
Someone made a wikipedia entry for me a few years ago, which is accurate. But the picture they had for me was very dated. So I replaced it myself with a current picture. But then I received a message that I did not copyright the picture. Do I have to. It's me and wanted the pic to be accurate.
 * , it does matter. Who took the photo?  That you are the subject isn't an issue but you aren't the copyright holder, the person who took it is the copyright holder.  So unless this is a selfie you can't give permission for this image to be used, and we would need to see permission from the person who took the picture. Nthep (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Dave. Welcome to Wikipedia! I like the current picture. Ok to brass tacks...Wikipedia takes copyright seriously. So, in each case that an image is uploaded we have to know the provenance of the image. A quick review shows the image is in use on your youtube channel, which lends credence to a notional claim that you own rights to the image. That being the case, if you wish to use the image here on Wikipedia you have to grant release of the image under a free license. A common free license under which you can grant rights is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported aka "CC BY-SA 3.0". Read the link to get a full understanding of the license. Generally, you would be allowing anyone to use it for commercial and non-commercial purposes, permitting derivative works, so long as they attribute you as the original producer and maintain the same license on any derivatives. If you want to license this image under that license, go to File:East Side Dave McDonald.jpeg, click on "edit this page" at the top, and replace all the content there with  . If you need further help, just let us know. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Postcard of sculpture
Can this image be used freely? It's a postcard of a 1916 Epstein bronze, but seems to be undated. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Basically, no. While the UK has a freedom of panorama exception per c:Commons:Freedom of panorama you don't know who holds any copyright on the postcard, which is actually a derivative work, because you don't know when it was published. However, in the US, as a US born artist, though he later became a British citizen, his work might still be considered under copyright as 70 years have not passed since his death in 1959. You could take a photo yourself, or ask a local wikipedian to do so, and release it under a free licence. ww2censor (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Properly citing photographs
Hello, I made some edits on the page for "Michael Korie" and notice that the photos I added were taken down. I read the pages on citing photo sources and remain unclear as to how photos may be added without copyright infringement. I certainly want to be sure that the photographers are given credit and that everything is above-board. Can you please advise as to why they were removed from the site and how I can resolve this issue? Thanks so much!

Pbarr6 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)pbarr6
 * It's not a matter of simply giving the photographers credit. Unless the photographers themselves personally release their rights in those photographs under one of certain specific rather broad Creative Commons licenses, they cannot be used here. That's not negotiable at all, for legal reasons. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Orangemike for clarifying. My mistake. So the proper course of action then is to get in touch with the photographers or their representatives and ask them to send back a filled out version of the consent form that appears on this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries

Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbarr6 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, that is correct! Crow  Caw  17:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And the photographer is credited, as the author of the image, in the image file and not in the article/s in which the image is used. ww2censor (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Public domain photograph published in Japan
Would a photograph published by a local government agency in Japan qualify as a public domain image? I've read Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory and it seems like it would fall under criteria 2 of Article 13, but I'm looking for a second opinion.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 23:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the picture in question a "public notices, instructions, circular notices" or the like? Crow  Caw  00:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Candian Tartans Pictures
Just wondering which one of these links would be okay to use.

BC Tartan: http://bcadayatatime.com/2013/03/29/here-are-some-facts-about-british-columbia-that-might-help-you-when-you-are-looking-for-souveniers-2/

Ontario Tartan: http://www.windsorscottish.com/sc-dress-cantartan.php

Yukon Tartan: http://www.sd71.bc.ca/sd71/edulinks/canada/ytindex.htm

Labrador Tartan: https://themdays.wordpress.com/tag/labrador-tartan/

NWT Tartan: http://www.scotland.com/tartans/north-west-territories-canadian-district-tartan/

Quebec Tartan: http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f254/canadian-tartans-58388/

PEI Tartan: https://www.pinterest.com/nanamofthing123/prince-edward-island/

Thanks Reaper50 (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Facebook picture media copyright.
What is media copyright for a Facebook picture. It is from a girl group official facebook and I want to upload it to use for their page. Shcj243 (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless the image is specifically noted to be freely licenced it is copyright to someone and you will need them, usually the photographer and not the subject of the image, to release it freely by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Essentially most images you find around the internet, Facebook, Pinterest, Linkedin, etc, are copyright and we cannot use them without a free licence being provided. Sorry to not have better news. ww2censor (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to replace non-free pictures in a Wikipedia article with my own Public Domain pictures?
I spend my Wikipedia time adding pictures (mainly aircraft) to articles. I don't keep count but by now I have added several thousand, all Public Domain. PD means that “I grant anyone the right to use my work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law”.

While deciding if an article needs a picture I often find that the article already has pictures similar to mine that are non-free i.e they have a usage licence that puts limitations on the pictures re-use.

My question is: am I justified in removing a good-quality non-free pic that is already in the article and substituting my own good-quality PD pic? In other words does Wikipedia have a policy on replacing non-free with free? The reason I ask is that I am sensitive to the feelings of those whose (perfectly good) pictures I may remove. They may have gone to great lengths to contact the picture-owner to get permissions. With thanks, - Arpingstone (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Arpingstone. Not only are you justified but if there is a suitably equivalent public domain image available, that renders the fair use image improper, as it no longer meets WP:NFCC. (It may also mean it never met that prong of the fair use criteria, since the very fact you were able to produce a PD image demonstrates that a free equivalent "could be created".) I suggest when you do replace them, you then tag the prior image for deletion maybe using and I'd note in the edit summary upon such tagging something like "An equivalent, public domain image is available at [[File:Name of file]] ". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit suspicious about this, frankly, as I'd never noticed many non-free images in aircraft articles, which always seems to me to have tons of free images on Commons, and often too many in the articles. Also you have something of a WP:COI in judging the quality of your own images, especially against other free images. Could you give an example of an article where only non-free images are the alternative? Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The original poster defined "non-free" as "a usage licence that puts limitations on the pictures re-use"; such a definition would also include CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, both of which are acceptable on Wikipedia as free licenses. If this is what is meant, then no, there is no policy requiring it, as CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are both free and in line with Wikipedia's licensing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, all of you, for your quick and helpful replies. I wrote my question badly because I had not realised that "free" also includes some of the licences - I was imagining that it was a synonym for PD. So Johnbod, of course you are correct that the aircraft articles are awash with free images now that I realise the meaning of "free". So I understand that I can only replace an existing free image in an article with my PD image on the grounds of better quality or aircraft positioning etc. Am I seeing this correctly now? - Arpingstone (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, or you could just add an image, though most (modern, civil) aircraft articles seem pretty full to me. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) If we look purely at licensing (i.e. not the individual images) they'd be on even ground according to policy. Thus, the replacements would have to be encyclopedically superior (showing the subjects better than the non-PD [but still free] images already in the article), or at least equal. [Addendum: Of course, if the article is under-illustrated, simply adding an image works — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)]
 * As for "free" as used on Wikipedia, Non-free content defines "free" as "content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially". CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, and similar licenses are thus considered free because, although there are limitations which outline how content may be used (i.e. attribution must be given, or attribution must be given and a similarly free license must be used for the resulting work), they do not affect one's "right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially"; anyone can and has the right to reuse content for any purposes, so long as they keep in-line with the licensing requirements. My own photographs have been used (giving me attribution, in accordance with the license) in obituaries, tourist websites, a tourist video, National Geographic Indonesia and ... a CD Cover for a Portuguese group which "mainly plays ambient and drone music, using guitars, bass and/or computer programs". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Nasty P image question
Hi, my picture has brought back issues, im unsure how to alter this description i went to the page and clicked edit and then added in info in the big box like this but im unsure Azura81 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing seems to be filled here: File:Nasty P in the studio.jpeg. Do you have any permission to use this image? where did you get it from? Tell us, then we can guide you when uploading it again. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * On your talk page you state you have permission. If so, please get the copyright holder, who is most often the photographer and not the subject of the image, to verify that permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * User talk:Ugog Nizdast. Also, try to keep the discussion at one place so that we don't get confused. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * sorry, im new to the message boards. are you able to tell me if I have done the picture correctly? Azura81 (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the picture is not correct. Get the copyright holder to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT otherwise the image will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Aditi Sajwan photo
I have simply downloaded and uplaoded the image file:AditiSajwan.jpg link for the Image download: http://www.tellytadka.net/wp-content/uploads/Aditi-Sajwan-as-Koyal-from-Chidiya-Ghar.jpg please specify me with suitable tag... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitishpal3 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Where is the page that includes that photo? What license to freely copy and modify the photo is given?  If there is no such text present then we cannot copy the photo here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The website tellytadka.net appears to contain copyright images (see the copyright notice at the bottom of the main page) but we cannot verify a free licence for the image you uploaded unless you provide a link to the page the image is displayed on, not just the url of the image itself. A simple search for this person does not bring up the image, so we have to assume it is a copyright image. ww2censor (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In Reference to Aditi Sajwan's Photo:
 * its Written TellyTadka.net Reserves Attributted Copyright (c) at the bottom. that Means it can be Downloaded and used as open source.. if i am wrong, the do the corrections, please....


 * this is the actual link to the webpage:
 * http://www.tellytadka.net/aditi-sajwan-shafaq-naaz-join-cast-chidiya-ghar-koyal-mayuri/


 * please rectify....
 * and simple google search will also bring the photo up....
 * please see into this matter....


 * and i have added the attributted copyright license at the image caption...Nitishpal3 (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I eventually found the image file:AditiSajwan.jpg by navigating through the images lower down the linked page, however, there is no evidence the image is freely licenced, so unless you can show it is freely licenced it will be deleted. The licence at the bottom of the page actually says "Copyright ©" not "Reserves Attributted Copyright (c)". As of today, contrary to your statement above, you have not added ANY licence to the image you uploaded. ww2censor (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

logo
Hi,

We are creatinga page for our grassroots organization and we want to add our logo. What kind of copy rights do we need to add and how do we do it?

http://lavi-olami.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/alliance_logo04-e1420782855484-432x222.png

thanks Hila — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilushit (talk • contribs) 17:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * off topic, but you shouldn't be creating pages for subjects that you have a close connection to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Besides the conflict of interest issue, your organisation may well not pass the notability threshold and if it does others will write a page. Otherwise it might be considered self promotion or advertising, marketing or public relations. Logos are usually copyright to the organisation however they could release it under a free licence though it may be allowed under our non-free policy but only if and when the article exists. ww2censor (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all it definitely does pass the notability threshold, secondly its a non profit organization there is nothing to advertise and thirdly I am a third party and I want to create a page for them because they do important work, there really should be no problem please don't delete! All the other groups of the same sort have pages like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilushit (talk • contribs) 00:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You uploaded File:Alliancevision.png, which is a different logo than the one you linked to above but it is missing lots of information and you are most likely not the copyright holder of the logo, so you cannot give it a free licence. It should pass our non-free content policy but that requires a fully completed rational as well as a non-free logo licence. Your independence sounds much better than the initial post but its notability may be challenged by others even if you consider it is notable. The link I provided does not only talk about advertising but also about advocacy which non-profits do, so writing with a neutral point of view is most important. I'll fix the logo for you but you need to provide the actual source page. Good luck and in future please sign your posts by adding four tildes, like this ~ to all you talk page posts. [[User:Ww2censor|ww2censor (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Need help with adding a picture that i found on www.indianexpress.com
Need help with adding a picture that i found on www.indianexpress.com

i wanted to add a pic which was a visualization of data from the USGS to "2015 Nepal earthquake". however, it was flagged...i'd like to know how i can add it (& similar pic files) for future reference. i couldn't find any copyright information on it. can anyone help me out? or at least instruct/teach me on what i should do in the future?

Rajaram101 (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)rajaram101


 * Unless otherwise mentioned, all images are assumed to have a copyright. We can only use the ones which have a free license or are in public domain. In your case, I presume that the Indian Express photographer has the copyright for the image. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * buts its not a photograph. Rajaram101 (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)rajaram101


 * Oh, sorry didn't read properly. However, copyrights applies to even visualisation of data. I assume a data table? Give us a link. Most likely, a free illustration can be remade by someone over here using that USGS data. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The image gives a USGS attribution, so maybe you can find it on their website where it is most likely in the public domain. ww2censor (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Article copyright
I have received this message and have tried to resolve but am not sure how to go about it, i followed your links but still do not understand. the article I submitted is from my own website and I wrote the original article from my own research therefore there is no copyright issue

The Message

Dai Pritchard left a message on your talk page in "Speedy deletion nomination...". A tag has been placed on The Dutch Doll requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.Munton (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See Donating copyrighted materials - for material from another website to be used in Wikipedia, it would need to be released under a Creative Commons license - which would permit it to be used anywhere (if properly attributed) and not just on Wikipedia. I don't think there is any point in doing this though, as the material in question is unsuitable for Wikipedia - we do not accept contributor's  original research for content, it cites no published sources, and accordingly fails to provide the necessary evidence that the subject matter meets our notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Creating an image from video of a dead person
Hello. Not entirely sure, if I'm allowed to upload an image i would create from video footage, under fair usage guidelines, for a page for a recently died person? Is this okay? Alternatively, what about using photos the person made on it's own. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If the person was well known and deceased recently there is quite a likelihood that a free image is available somewhere so you just have to find it. If after some extensive searching no image can be found then you might be able to justify a non-free image so long as it complies with all 10 non-free content policy criteria. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Well, I looked at google image and flickr and cc usage, without luck. I might wait a few more days, maybe there will be an image, it's for Dan Fredinburg. prokaryotes (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)