Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/June

Old UK painting (no copyright) now on Artnet
I am starting to write an article on a character called John Gerard Leigh (died 1875), so I would like to include an image or two.

He had a portrait done by Sir Francis Grant (d. 1878) and it was later donated to St Alban's Museum (UK) who advertised their intention to sell it in 1992. I presume that was when a photograph was taken of it for auction purposes. A low-res version is apparently used on quite a few auction history sites (most of which require membership and/or a fee to view the auction history/price and image). Artnet (a US site) displays this image up front but demands payment to see further auction details... http://www.artnet.com/artists/sir-francis-grant/portrait-of-gerard-leight-master-of-the-PZUUQ7fnKrSKgpjgcZw4ng2 (note they couldn't even get his name right). It is low-res to start with.

So as a 'slavish copy' of an out of copyright portrait, it cannot be copyrighted, can it, in the US? The only wrinkle I can see is that the painting was probably sold in the UK (so a new copyright is created on a copy) so the photographer was probably a British one, but I cannot find the auction house without paying to enter one of these sites.

Any guidance? Colin aka Henri Merton 22:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've just found the auction record... http://artsalesindex.artinfo.com/asi/lots/2694786

so it was sold in New York in 1998. So no UK connection to copyright at all! So I guess OK to republish here as no copyright exists? Colin aka Henri Merton 23:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Wikimedia Foundation has basically said that it stands behind the fact that a 2D slavish reproduction of a public domain work (which this has to be given that we are past life + 70 at the worst possible case) cannot be a new copyright regardless of claims made by others (specifically the National Portrait Gallery). As such Commons will accept 2D images of clearly PD art without any issue. The end user may have to be concerned about reusing it (in this case, a UK reuser might have to consider a lower-grade image than high-res), but this doesn't apply to most of the rest of the world. You can read more at Reuse of PD-Art photographs or When to use the PD-Art tag. --M ASEM (t) 00:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Masem! That is now clear that I can. So I also have a slavish copy of an old UK (1859) painting which has been recently copied in the UK from an illustration in a recent UK book. I guess Wikipedia will allow me to upload that on the same basis? I accept that I run the remote risk (I am in the UK) of a civil suit for doing so!

Football Club logo
Hello

Recently I tried update the correct club badge for the football club which I am on the committee. It has been removed because it "possible copyright violation", how do I get the greenlight to use the logo on Wiki? What proof or permission do I/you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hucknall Ram (talk • contribs) 08:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In your contributions I only see File:Hucknall Town FC logo.png uploaded by you back in 2013. Where did you upload it and what was it called? Like this image an updated logo is probably copyright to the club and would need to be uploaded as a non-free image like the previous one. BTW you should be aware of your obvious conflict of interest in editing this article. ww2censor (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Who is "author" of a WP file I've modified slightly? and other misadventures in uploading
I really hate to come across as a ranting complainer, but I'm at my wits' end trying to upload a slight modification of a CC-by-sa family tree chart File:Eritrean family.png that was first uploaded by the author in 2006 and then in 2009 by another WPan, who added color to the chart. The latter put in the comments section only

— i.e., "Non-free use but I can't give any details", which doesn't give me much guidance and sure seems to describe the spot the upload wizard has stuck me in. And is the "author" the original author, the 2009 modifier, or me? Gory details at Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard. To discuss this, please me. --Thnidu (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The original file was uploaded as CC-BY-SA2.5, so any derivative works that came later (including the coloring) would also be under that license due to the SA part. So the user who uploaded the new revisions used the wrong license template by using the Non Free one. If you want to upload a derivative version of this file, call it CC-BY-SA, with a wikilink back to the above page, which is considered sufficient attribution on-wiki. Crow  Caw  21:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * ... Weird. This time I used the upload wizard and didn't get asked about licensing at all. Simplemente no comprendo. But the new version of the file is up, and appears in the article (Habesha name). --Thnidu (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Tescologo Ireland
File:Tescologo.png is tagged as Non-free logo (and di-orphaned fair use) but it's only text and colour bars and does not seem to meet the Threshold of originality. Should it be retagged as PD-textlogo (and trademark and Do not move to Commons)? The almost identical File:Tesco_Logo.svg is already tagged as the latter(s) and the rationales may apply here as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is orphaned because it has been replaced with File:Tesco Logo.svg that you mention and that image is a simple "textlogo" type image. There is now really no need to keep this image so it can be deleted as it will likely never be used again. ww2censor (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Reporting polls
There's a debate at Talk:Debate_on_the_monarchy_in_Canada on whether reporting the questions and results of public opinion polls is a violation of the pollster's copyright and whether media sources on polling results can be considered reliable sources. Please share your knowledge/opinions. AnonAnnu (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Google n-gram chart
1. I uploaded a Google n-gram chart ( :File:Paternoster etc ngram.jpg) to use in the discussion at Talk: Esperanto grammar. I couldn't find any license information on it or any discussion of usage permissions or restrictions, but the fact that Google provides embed code for it makes a pretty strong case for unlimited use.

I wrote that argument into the file description, but I couldn't find an item on the licensing dropdowns to describe it accurately. Naturally the upload interface, which can't read text, threw up the appropriate forest of warning flags, including a takedown date of June 1. What should I do?

2. I'm composing this question in a text app on my smartphone. The instructions for this page say
 * 1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to ask your question" link above.

Ain't no such link via the Beta Mobile Front End, so I'm gonna hafta send this file to my laptop & post it from there. [PS: post  bug report on Phabricator.]

To discuss any of this, please me. --Thnidu (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there is nothing in the existence of embed code that undoes Google's copyright in their product and its results. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have found Google's relevant statement of permission—
 * Ngram Viewer graphs and data may be freely used for any purpose, although acknowledgement of Google Books Ngram Viewer as the source, and inclusion of a link to http://books.google.com/ngrams, would be appreciated.
 * — and pasted it, together with its source link (https://books.google.com/ngrams/info), into the file's Summary field, replacing what I put there before. However, none of the listed copyright status descriptions match it, so I am asking here for the help of a more experienced editor. Please me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

deleted the file ten hours after I added the permissions; see User talk:TLSuda. I request replacement. --Thnidu (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Since has posted this here as well, I'll include my response from my talk oage:
 * 1) I've just checked the image's summary page after deletion, and there was not a license on it at all. Your comments are still there, but without a license being included (CC-by, PD, etc) the image was not in line with our policies and should have been deleted.  So I deleted it.
 * 2) Since Google does not release their content under a specific license, they still own the copyright, and therefore we cannot use it. For example, we only allow media to be uploaded if it can have derivatives made of it. (That's a difference in what Wikipedia sees as free, and what US copyright says is free). Google's statement says nothing about allowing derivatives. Until and unless Google releases this data under a specific free license, we cannot host it. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. But I still think it inadequate, and I would like to ask 's opinion. "[M]ay be freely used for any purpose" sure looks like open permission to me, including derivative works. Hell's bells, they don't say anything about using or not using it in a school, on a mobile device, or on a bread wrapper, but I assure you, ANY really does mean "Any". What does WP require, Google's oath signed in blood and a note from its mother?
 * Oxford Dictionaries: Whichever of a specified class might be chosen: [as determiner]:
 * these constellations are visible at any hour of the night
 * any fool knows that
 * Macmillan Online: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind:
 * a : one or another taken at random : ''ask any man you meet
 * b : every —used to indicate one selected without restriction : any child would know that
 * any: 2. No matter what kind.
 * choose any items you want
 * any person may apply
 * --Thnidu (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I too am inclined to read "any" as meaning, y'know, any. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How about my conclusion, namely, that Google's statement amounts to a license for unlimited use nd that consequently Wikipedia can legally and safely use those charts? --Thnidu (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you think.... We have no license that says "Any" use. Google may have allowed it for "any" use, but they have not released it under a free (by our definition) license.  How could we possibly identify what license it is when they haven't explicitly said? By your thought about "any" meaning absolutely anything, that would be public domain. The problem with that logic is a company as big as Google, who makes money off of their products and services would likely never put anything into the public domain.
 * To answer your question of what Wikipedia needs... No its not a blood oath. Its evidence that the image/date/media/etc is released under a license that we deem to be free. No license, no use.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record: in the parallel discussion on TLSuda's talk page, they've given me an answer that makes sense to me. --Thnidu (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope we'll never see a time when a _date_ can be put under copyright. If that ever happens, we might just all throw in the towel.85.229.222.153 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

thumbnail
I'm putting a picture on my Wikipedia page and it's not letting me do it. It says that you can't use the picture without permission from the person who it on the internet, but it is on my user page where no one but me can see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWEFan1926 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Everyone can see and edit every page here, for the most part. Copyrighted material is not allowed anywhere, as it states above every edit window and you agree to by hitting the Save button. Crow  Caw  18:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 100% incorrect. Copyrighted material can definitely be used! You just have to have a license to use it in this context. Perhaps the world would be a better place if you were correct ("Copyrighted material is not allowed anywhere"), but that's not something we will ever experience.85.229.222.153 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Would a "All circuits are busy" telephony message be in the Public domain?
Hi, I am wondering if a telephony recording of a North American "All circuits are busy" message would be in the Public domain? Do you think we could upload it because it could be common property and contains no original authorship? Reply with template. Thank you! CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to me it would still be copyrighted, depending on the date published. Each telecom company makes their own recordings, so they're really no different than any audio recording made by a company. Whether it is a person's voice on the recording (see Jane Barbe) or a mechanical voice, someone put some creative input into the recording, even if the message is just "all circuits are busy". I could be wrong here (and please chime in if I am), but that's how I read it. Crow  Caw  00:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you . You are probably right. It's weird though, the busy signal for telephony and other signals are on the Commons as common property. I guess busy signals are not copyrighted? I will try to do some more research. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * One small correction, but I think it's important: for sound recordings, the date published has no bearing on US public domain status. Recordings made before 1972 are not protected by federal copyright, but state and common-law protections still apply. No sound recordings have fallen into the US public domain because of their age. Under current laws, that won't happen until 2067. ReverendWayne (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Derivative?
Is File:Jean_Metzinger,_1915,_Soldat_jouant_aux_échecs_(Soldier_at_a_Game_of_Chess),_X-ray_overlay.jpg similar enough to File:Jean_Metzinger,_Soldier_at_a_Game_of_Chess,_X-ray_composite.jpg that the former should be considered a derivative of the latter? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly think they are both supposed to be the same image, as they were both used in the same article. I'm trying to figure out why there are differences in the images...  TLSuda  (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, So one is a recreation of the image by a user (which is not encyclopedic, because it isn't what is created by the original person) using "public domain" x-ray images, and the other is the original image. Now that I understand that, I would say yes it is derivative (although technically recreated) and that it should be deleted if for no other reason that it is a misrepresentation of the artwork. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The original work is a painting by Jean Metzinger. One X-ray composite overlay was created by medical doctors, and yet a new version by myself. The new composite image should not be deleted, as it displays sufficient originality of its own, i.e., due to the substantial transformativeness, the derivative work is fair use. Coldcreation (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Family Photos
Hello, My Grandfather was Arturs Cavara and there is a wikipedia page about him. Several months back I posted an image of him from a photograph that my family owns. When I checked the page, it was deleted. This was very disappointing to my family, who would like to see his image remembered. How do I post a family photo of him that is not breaking any copyright laws? I also have documents from WWII European refugee camps that he stayed in (of which we own but were never "copyrighted"), which I posted for the sake of preserving history. Again, these were deleted and I saw no reason why. How do I prove these are family items, which have been scanned and given by the Cavara family. Thank you for your time. Sincerely bcavara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcavara (talk • contribs) 21:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, there are a few instructions here about providing permission for media. These might help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Licence tag
Which licnece tag should I select for photos of tennis players to be put in their article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silaslej (talk • contribs) 10:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That depends entirely on how the photo is licenced. Generally we only accept freely licenced images where it is verified that the copyright holder has release the image under a free licence. if you are referring to File:Kvitova WC 2010.jpg the source clearly attributed to Hamish Blair/Getty Images Europe), so as a press agency image we cannot use it unless you get the copyright holder's permission. The other 2 images you uploaded are also Getty Images. You might find it useful to read my image copyright information page that explains several of the reasons why images can be rejected and deleted. ww2censor (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot tagging
The ImageTaggingBot tagged (twice) a I uploaded (a college crest) as having no licensing data, although I have given it a Non-free use rationale logo template for its licensing. Is there a bug with the bot or did I do somoething wrong? Is it only admins that can remove the bot's tag? Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) a penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * A non free rationale is not a licence which is why the bot tagged it again after you removed its first tag. Later User:NickW557 added, the required, appropriate non-free logo licence template and now the bot is happy! Have a look at the history to see the progression. In polite computer speak we used to call this "user error". Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Embedded media file
I have a question about an embedded media file in 2014 Hong Kong protests. It seems be a combination embedded citation/external link to a YouTube video using external media, which is something I've never come across before. Not sure if this style of linking is acceptable per Wp:CS or if there are any copyright issues per WP:COPYLINK. Any clarification that can be provided would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Así es el tango
I would like to use the image here File:Asíeseltango.jpg in an article I am working on for Olinda Bozán, but it was apparently originally input as "fair use." I do NOT understand which one of the templates is supposed to be modified. It appears there are multiple templates on the file. The photograph is a still from a movie made in 1937 in Argentina. It can be verified here [Argentine Ministry of Culture] site, which I appended to the file description so that "anyone can verify it." Argentine license has expired, as 78 years have passed since the photograph was created and published. It should also be in the US public domain as it entered Argentine pubic domain in 1962, well before 1996. It is in US public domain "if it entered the public domain in Argentina prior to 1996." Can someone please transfer this to commons so that I can use it? Any help is greatly appreciated. SusunW (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The photograph seems to have been taken on set of the film judging by the faces of the actress on the left and centre looking at the camera. It's a PD photo. It was originally given a fair use rationale before I was aware of the PD:Argentina license. You'll find many more PD photos on that Acceder website which can be uploaded to the commons. Make sure they're not photos or actual screenshots though.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It does look like the image is PD in the US as well as Argentina. As it stands you can use the image on the enwiki without it being on the commons for the article Olinda Bozán. ww2censor (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A better quality main image can be uploaded from here or here. Many more from Page 5 here. If you want film shots though make sure they're taken on set rather than actual screenshots. That acceder website is an astonishing resource for Argentine actors and films, in fact the commons would benefit from several thousand images if a bot was used.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I thought fair use could only be used for the single file they were proposed for. But, I'd still like to have the photo moved to commons and don't know where or which one of those templates to change. a bot would be lovely. Yes, there are thousands of images there. I will upload more for Bozan's file. SusunW (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * We use the term non-free instead of the legal term fair use because our non-free policy is more restrictive and all such uses must comply with all 10 non-free policy guidelines. A rationale for each use must be specific to each use. In some cases an image is used multiple times but most often just once. Do you actually need to use this image outside the enwiki that requires it to be moved. It is already tagged for a bot to move it. I only see an Italian article and that has a PD image in it. ww2censor (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't read that bot message like it was going to be moved at all. It says a human must verify it. Would seem to me that moving the image would improve the entire encyclopedia as anyone would have access to it. But, I have placed it in the article I wanted to use it with and it seems like what you are saying is leave it where it is. So, I move on. SusunW (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally I would prefer if Dr Blofeld would make the decision on moving it as he was the original uploader and is an active editor but I'll have a look at it. ww2censor (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Rational for video game screenshot?
Could someone explain to me why a screenshot, with already added none free template requires an additional rational template? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elite-Dangerous-Orbital-Station.jpg#Licensing User:Yamla notified me that the screenshot requires a rational. But the template for screenshot of a non-free copyrighted video game or computer game already has a rational as i understand. prokaryotes (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't include a rationale after uploading it, so Yamla tagged it as "lacking rationale". Non-free game screenshot is not a rationale by itself, it's merely a copyright tag. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think i will stop uploading images to Wikipedia, the process is one big cluster freak. prokaryotes (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is indeed. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, i think for public domain images (i.e. NASA) or flickr images the process is okay, since you can tick the source-option during upload, but providing several times over the same info for content like vid screenshots, which is obviously a good thing for WP and the copyright holder in question, is an unclear tedious process. prokaryotes (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "is an unclear tedious process" yes. I hypothesize that it's so we avoid fair-use images wherever possible, but obviously video game screenshots are almost never going to be freely-licensed. --Yamla (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Old sugar packet design
I have many sugar packet labels from the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's. They will have a design including the name of restaurant and name of sugar company and maybe a pictorial, for example picture of a hotel. Can I upload these pictures of sugar packet labels to add to an article. For example for an article on the hotel Taft I have a picture with the hotel taft name and also advertising the NY 1939 Worlds fair Ccprob (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright question
How can i get a copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cele comedian (talk • contribs) 07:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The mere fact of taking a photo confers a copyright to the photographer of that photo, so you get copyright to a photo by taking the photo yourself, however, the image can the held under a restrictive licence such as All rights reserved or it can be released under a free licence which generally are the only sort we accept here. You can of course release your own images under a free licence but if you use a non-free licence we cannot use your images here. Most images you find on the internet are not freely licenced and cannot be uploaded here because someone else own the copyright and we don't have their permission; you cannot get a copyright to other peoples images. You might find it useful to read my image copyright information page which tells goes through the reasons images are unacceptable to us here. If you have a particular image in mind just ask and we will advise you. ww2censor (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Uploading Image on Biography....
I have a picture that is my property. However I don't want anyone else to use it anywhere except Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan79al (talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How does it meet the Non-free content criteria? "Wikipedia use only" images need to comply with all of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, remember that it is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia content to be republished elsewhere, even commercially. If you don't want people to use your content except on Wikipedia, please do not upload it. --Yamla (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you just own an image, you may not even be the copyright holder who is usually the photographer and, even if you do own the copyright, if you are not willing to provide it under a free licence we cannot use it either so please don't upload it as it will only be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Textlogo
thumb|public domain? The logo on the right is tagged as non-free media. But I believe it is just a simple text logo and should therefore be public domain, so that it could be moved to commons. Qit16 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That file is mostly text with some graphical content. If this doesn't meet the Threshold of originality (as stated in that article) then this one most likely doesn't, either. Waiting for more opinions before acting on this, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Postal images
Dear Wikipedia,

I would like to inquire about the copyright status of three Wikipedia images that I'm hoping to use in a academic book, to be published by Oxford University Studies in Enightenment and entitled The Culture of the Post: 1500-1800. These images are:

1. The Thurn und Taxis coat of arms (source: Wikipedia, ‘Thurn und Taxis’);

2. Post horn logo from Sweden (source: Wikipedia, ‘post horn’);

3. Trystero muted post horn (source: Wikipedia, ‘post horn’).

Can you tell me who (if anyone) holds the copyright to these images and what it would cost to reprint them in an academic book (the plan is for 400 copies to be published)?

Thank you in advance.

Jay Caplan Professor of French Amherst College — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.45.166 (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you click on the images, you can see more detailed information about them. For example, File:Posthorn.jpg shows that it has been released to the public domain, and includes information on who originally took the photo. If you still have questions, please feel free to ask! --Yamla (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like all the images you refer to are hosted on the commons where only freely licenced images are allowed, so depending on the specific licences you can use those image in compliance with those licences which means that even in your book no new licence is created. They will remain freely licenced images and you should provide a source for them. When your book is completed perhaps you will also freely licence it so the Philately project can benefit from your work by having access to it. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This should not be allowed
Wikipedia terms and conditions should be changed to prevent people from making financial profit by copying and pasting entire Wikipedia articles into "books" and then trying to sell these, and from similar blatant violations of the spirit in which Wikipedia is produced and the generous spirit in which people contribute their time and effort to the project. I can't understand how something so clearly contrary to the project ethos was ever allowed in the first place. 109.145.19.20 (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You are raising this at the wrong place - Village pump (policy)would be more appropriate. Frankly though, I think you will find you are wasting your time. Wikipedia cannot impose more restrictive terms on existing content - that would be a breach of the terms on which it was uploaded. And I can see little evidence for any support for such a proposal anyway - it gets raised occasionally (usually by people who haven't looked into the background to the decision), and never gains traction. A properly-argued case for a change would have to explain in detail how it could be implemented (i.e. how different terms could be applied to new content, without breaking the existing terms for existing content), and would have to convince people that there was a significant benefit to the project in actually doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Peter the Great Statue
Why is it that the Russian and German versions of this article can include photos of this statue, yet photos added to the English article are repeatedly removed due to "freedom of panorama" objections? The idea that Wikipedia cannot include a picture of a huge statue in a highly visible and accessible city centre context is totally and utterly ridiculous, and Wikipedia, like everyone else in the world, including, it seems, in Russia itself, should ignore this stupid and absurd restriction. 109.145.19.20 (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Freedom_of_panorama laws vary by jurisdiction. The laws in the US are more restrictive than they are in Europe, generally. Thus there are quite a few images taken in Europe that cannot be used in the US. This recent signpost article Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-06-17/In_focus notes that Europe is moving to make their freedom of panorama more restrictive so we may have to take down many images.


 * Suggesting that Wikipedia ignore the law is a nonstarter.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright question
I have a jpeg photo taken by a professional photographer which I would like to upload to a specific Wiki article. The photographer has provided a written release as well as an email confirming the release covers upload to Wikipedia. I have read and reread the Wikipedia copyright guidelines but cannot figure out how to tag the photo correctly so it will not be deleted due to copyright issue. Hoping you can provide guidance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann Neff (talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I presume you are referring to the commons image c:File:Barney Adams.jpg that was deleted back in April due to not having received any verification of permission. You need to get the copyright holder to follow the procedure found at c:COM:OTRS on the commons, where the image was originally uploaded, mentioning the original file name. If the OTRS team are happy with the permission they will restore the image with the tag agreed with the copyright holder. We can't advise you how to tag the image because we don't know under what licence the copyright holder released the image. Please be aware that the OTRS team can be rather backed up up with delays as long as a month, so be patient. ww2censor (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The good news is that the backlog is getting cleaned up. The backlog was over 850 tickets not long ago, it is now about 150. However, I just searched and do not see that anyone has sent in any information regarding Barney Adams.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Kandinsky's Lake Starnberg
Would anybody know why Wassily Kandinsky's Lake Starnberg, painted in 1908, is apparently still in copyright, according to Tate? Alakzi (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. There's no photo for them to be claiming copyright on and the painting itself would seem to be out of copyright (unless it was first published in a country with weird copyright law). My guess is that the owner who lent it to the Tate did so on condition it was not displayed on the web and they have flagged this inappropriately. Thincat (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That does sound like a likely scenario, thank you. Could somebody claim copyright on their photograph of a public-domain painting? I'd think not. Alakzi (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not in the US which is all enwp cares about, see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and template:PD-art. On commons WMF have said they will host such photos whatever the source country's law says and, suprisingly to me, commons consensus seems to have accepted this. I think if you uploaded someone's photo of this then it would not get deleted. See commons:Template:PD-Art Thincat (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! Alakzi (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of File:JohnnyHelmsJazzTrumpeter.png
Dear Wikipedia,

I have recently realized that the above image is indeed in the public domain and should not be deleted.

The picture was taken at the June, 1977 Spoleto Festival but unfortunately the only evidence I can offer is the what can be found in the article on Johnny Helms concerning his appearance at the festival that year. This info was apparently copied from the liner notes of a recording of the jazz portion of the festival.

The original image that I cropped also pictured Louis Bellson who was on the same program.

Perhaps if I can find the LP record in question a scan of the liner notes would be conclusive proof of the date of creation.

Please let me know what my options are at this point to prevent deletion of the image.

Thank you very kindly, JaneOlds (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not following why you assert that the images in the public domain. I see a note on the image that the file was released into the public domain by Terry Rosen and Johnny Helms, but I don't see any supporting documentation.


 * I also see a note that "It should only be used in conjunction with the article Johnny Helms. " This is quite incompatible with public domain and suggests a lack of knowledge of copyright issues.


 * How do you know that the image was released into the public domain?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your speedy reply. It was my understanding that something created before 1978 would be in the public domain.  I've been dealing with this copyright issue for quite a while now and most certainly entered incorrect or out of date information at some point.  The file was deleted once and I tried to start over but have run into another set of problems.  And yes, I'm not a lawyer who specializes in copyright law, so yes, I have a definite lack of knowledge of copyright issues.  Thank you for your input, JaneOlds (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Referring only to the US, which appears relevant to this case, photos taken before 1923 are automatically in the public domain. After that it becomes much more complicated. There was a period of time during which a work had to have a copyright notice. Unfortunately, it was common for a photo to have the notice on the reverse side of the printed photo. That means, for photos during this period we have to be able to examine the front and the back to determine whether the notice is missing. In practice, for anything after 1923, we like to see an explicit permission. There are important exceptions in the case of federal images (not applicable here) and some older works where copyrights were required to be filed and renewed, neither of which seems applicable.
 * Copyright is a very complicated issue, and while I have learned a lot, I still have much to learn. I believe we would need explicit permission from the copyright holder in this case but if another copyright expert has another answer I'm open to listening. I do understand that it is likely that the copyright holder is dead. That does not create a public domain, the copyright is transferred as part of the estate.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Addendum, an important correction to my note above; something I tend to forget. Dates refer to dates of publication not the date the photo was taken. This can add a very complicated layer on top of an already complicated situation, as it is not unusual to know the date of photos is taken, but not know when the photo was first published. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Beside knowing if and whether an image was published or not it is also important to know who the author is and when and if they died. Generally an image will not fall into the public domain until 70 years pma, i.e., 70 year after the death of the author, if created after 1978. You should read c:COM:CRT in detail for more information. ww2censor (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Wish to create a Wikipedia page for a deceased but high profile individual who doesn't have one
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am in the process of compiling a brief synopsis, following the general Wikipedia format, of details of the life of Dr. Wilson A. Head, author of Life on the Edge: Experiences in Black and White in North America. I note that the person who wrote the forward to this book, the late Lincoln Alexander, has a Wikipedia page dedicated to him, and the person who wrote the epilogue to the book, Madame Rosalie Silberman Abella, also has a Wikipedia page dedicated to her, but Dr. Head has none. I am close to finishing the compilation for Dr. Head and would like to know how to submit it. Do I need a copyright and how do I get one? I will be able to submit a photograph of Dr. Head as well.

Also, I note that Dr. Head is not mentioned on the notable alumni of the two universities he attended in the U.S., and should be, so I will be submitting details of his graduations as well as a proposal that his name be added to those two pages as notable alumni.

Yours truly,

Kathleen O'Neill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katsheron (talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Katsheron, and welcome to Wikipedia. To answer your questions on the copyright situation, let me first address the text part of your proposed article. As explained here, "the text of Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses." But, at the same time, "permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify Wikipedia's text under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and, unless otherwise noted, the GNU Free Documentation License." In short, the text you provide will be copyrighted to you, but by adding it to Wikipedia you automatically release it under two free licenses for anyone to edit, share, and modify. This includes also the possibility for commercial exploitation of your text.


 * Images on Wikipedia are a special subject, because even if you are in the possession of a physical copy of a photograph, it will not automatically make you the copyright holder. If you intend to add photographs to Wikipedia which you did not take yourself, we will need an email of consent from the original photographer, or other means of proof that these images were never copyrighted in the United States, or are out of copyright (e.g. due to old age).

Generally, you might want to read this primer for beginners at Wikipedia. It explains how to write a suitable Wikipedia article. E.g. it is important that the notability of a subject is supported by verifiable, secondary references. Once you think, your text is ready for submission, I suggest you first post it at Draft:Wilson Head instead of using the live article space. This will enable other editors to provide feedback to you, and you can improve the text without risking an early deletion for formal reasons that could be avoided. To insert your text, click the red "Draft" link, insert your text into the editor window and click "save page".

Last but not least, I would like to note two things: Please sign your controbutions to noticeboards and talk pages like this one by typing four tilde characters. It will automatically add your username and a timestamp for reference (NB: article and draft content is not signed this way). And while Wikipedia editors should always treat each other with respect and civility, there is no need for formal addresses like "Dear Madam and Sir". Feel free to ask any more questions, and happy editing. De728631 (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

From what I was able to glean very quickly.  You probably have a good subject for an article. Good luck, and improve other articles, if you would. Thanks. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

ILLBLISS ARTICLE
I created the article "ILLBLISS" about a year ago. The artiste contacted me some weeks ago, requesting that I upload images and finish it up. He sent me files, including photos, which i have tried uploading to the page, but as I am new to Wikipedia in terms of creating articles, I would like to know if there is a way I can prove that I got these images from the artiste to prevent these files I uploaded from being deleted.

I have used "PD-self" as the copyright information. I would like to know if this is appropriate or not. Additional information would be very much appreciated too. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deolae (talk • contribs) 12:28, 22 June 2015


 * That licence template would be fine if the images were actually your own work to release freely but they are not your work and clearly are still copyright to the creator. To verify the permission you need to get the copyright holder, who is normally the photographer and not the subject of an image, to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT when an OTRS team volunteer will communicate with them and determine exactly under what licence they are prepared to licence the images. However, remember that the images provided must be freely licenced which menas that anyone can use them for anything including commercial or derivative purposes and they need to understand that. Perhaps you are talking about File:ILLY.jpg - who took the photo and what copyright licence did they release the image under? BTW, please remember to sign all your talk page posts, but not article edits, by adding four tildes, like this, ~ to such posts. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

File:GiveDirectly_logo_2015.png
This logo was tagged as non-free logo upon upload by (And welcome to Wikipedia, Rlange!). It's only coloured text, though - that falls under PD-textlogo, yes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Being a US logo it is certainly appropriate to use PD-textlogo. It has only just been uploaded by a new editor, possibly an employee, so they may not realise the more appropriate tag. ww2censor (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Worth that the group has a larger version of the logo on its website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just edit the image file and then upload the larger version. ww2censor (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Licence ?
Hello, I've recently updated an image to a page I created. The photo is properly cited and the photographer (and website) from whence it came are given credit. However, I am unclear on how to indicate the license status of the image (meaning: I don't know how to figure out what the image's license is/if I'm allowed to use it as per Wiki rules). Could anyone help me out here? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLSF4470 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about File:Peterbeck.jpg that you uploaded, then you must get the copyright holder, who appears to be the photographer Doug Davis, to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT to verify they are releasing the image as freely licenced. Without that we cannot keep the image. ww2censor (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Peer review and document improvement request
This is a Peer review request to seek broader input to improve page''': meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for relinquishment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules.

Mahitgar (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Can this image be uploaded to Wikipedia under fair use?
Does anyone know if this image can be uploaded to Wikipedia under fair use for the article Frank E. Beach Memorial Fountain? I found it using this Creative Commons search feature, but it says "Some rights reserved". Also, the "Upload file" wizard found on the lefthand sidebar at Wikipedia does not seem to be working for me. Anyone else? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That image is licensed under CC-BY-2.0 which is a compatible license for use here, without Fair Use. Just link to that source page in the upload form to provide the necessary attribution according to the license terms.  Crow  Caw  18:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But don't images of contemporary works of art have to be used under fair use? I wish this weren't so confusing. I'll see what I can do. Thanks for your help! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, the photog may not have the right to license it as he did. Don't upload it yet! Crow  Caw  22:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, no. Too late. See here. Hopefully this was done correctly. If not, apologies! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a photo of a 1975 sculpture, so yes it is a derivative work of the sculptor's art, so the photographer was incorrect in applying that license release. I've added some verbiage to the fair use rationale on the image. It looks right otherwise, with the possible exception that the pic should be downsized further. Other MCQ regulars please chime in! Crow  Caw  22:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your assistance. Now that I know how to do this, I will try to find Flickr images for other outdoor sculptures in Portland with unillustrated Wikipedia articles. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually neither of you are quite complete in your thoughts. Being a US sculpture any image of it is a derivative work and usually requires both a copyright licence for the sculpture AND the photo. The photo is freely licenced and according to this SIRIS Smithsonian Art Inventories Catalog Copyright Search the memorial was erected in 1974-5. All such pre-1978 sculptures require a copyright notice on the sculpture, or that the copyright was renewed, to still be in copyright but according to SIRIS it does not appear to have this notice, so you can add the template PD-US-no notice and substitute a fully completed normal information template for the non-free one you used. You may want to read c:Commons:Freedom of panorama for further insight to this freedom of panorama topic. ww2censor (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks WW2C! So many rules and exceptions! Is it really a FoP issue though, since the sculpture is the subject of the photo and not incidentally included? And also doesn't US FoP only extend to buildings? Crow  Caw 00:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, did you read the link I gave you above? It depends on the county but in the US buildings are free to photograph but monuments and sculptures are not. In France modern buildings are not free to photograph! As I explained a photo of a sculpture is a derivative work and, if still in copyright, requires two copyright tags; one for the sculpture and one for the photo. Derivative works of all sorts come with their own set of problems and need careful consideration. Just ask if you have FoP issues in future. ww2censor (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

adding photo and write new biography
hi how can add photo to my biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinkle Home (talk • contribs) 11:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

About the article image
the image which is used in Sanjok Acharya is created/clicked by the Sanjok Acharya himself. It is casually taken from smartphone and the image is used in his article by his permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab s3 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems unlikely. Both his hands are in his pockets. How was he controlling the camera? --Yamla (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Any Images of American Printmaker, James Swann?
They are old and pretty much everywhere. Wouldn't they be in the Commons now? Also, can you help me understand how to upload images?

Thanks, Will Rayn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Rayn (talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * They are old and pretty much everywhere does not mean they are out of copyright. Actually he did not die until 1985, so some of his work is still copyright until 2055 but you should refer to c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory as there are rather complex issues between 1963 and 1978 and most concern publication dates and copyright notices and their renewal. A commons search does not show any of his images. Any images you intend to use must be verifiably freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

John Harrison Finger - Mr. Walk America Walking High Point (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I want to add some pictures to my article on John Harrison Finger. The ones I want to add are ones that I took and I don't have a license or copyright. I tried to delete the one that was taken by a newspaper photographer but I couldn't. It is the one of John Finger's first walk. Walking High Point (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You can release images you actually took under a free licence such as PD-self, Attribution, cc-by-4.0 or cc-by-sa-4.0 but any images you were given require the permission of the photographer because simple possession does not confer any rights to you. The newspaper images will generally not be acceptable without permission from the paper or the photographer which is most often never happens. Each image all requires a fully completed information template. Click on each template link to see the full template details and how to use them. To get an image deleted blank the page and in the summary say why it should be deleted. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Aesthetica Short Film Festival Logo.jpg
Another file uploaded as non-free logo despite being only text and a line. This time though it's an UK derived logo (where the treshold of originality is much lower), so it might be PD-textlogo but also Do not move to Commons; consider the Commons guideline regarding UK logos. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Google Earth Images
I want to ask, if the images used here are permitted or not. The Google Earth Policy to use images is here. The discussion on the use of the images on talk page is here—  Trip Wire  talk 20:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Google Earth pictures are not free works in the sense of our image policy, and the licensing conditions on Google Earth you linked to are not a "free license". Google Earth images could only possibly be used in some exceptional cases under a "fair use" rationale, but that would essentially only come into play if, by some rare coincidence, the images themselves (rather than the objects they show) were the objects of discussion in our articles. This is very rarely the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * These would be considered nonfree. Since it would be possible to generate free images of these terrain features, they would fail criterion #1 of the nonfree image requirements, and so they may not be used. As to why they are considered nonfree, the Google Earth policy you linked states "You can personally use an image from the application (for example on your website, on a blog or in a word document) as long as you preserve the copyrights and attributions including the Google logo attribution. However, you cannot sell these to others, provide them as part of a service, or use them in a commercial product such as a book or TV show without first getting a rights clearance from Google." In order to be free, media must be licensed for reuse for any purpose, including for commercial purposes, and must be freely modifiable. The Google Earth images fail on both of those criteria, as commercial use is explicitly forbidden, as are some forms of modification. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Aesthetica Short Film Festival Logo.jpg
Another file uploaded as non-free logo despite being only text and a line. This time though it's an UK derived logo (where the treshold of originality is much lower), so it might be PD-textlogo but also Do not move to Commons; consider the Commons guideline regarding UK logos. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Google Earth Images
I want to ask, if the images used here are permitted or not. The Google Earth Policy to use images is here. The discussion on the use of the images on talk page is here—  Trip Wire  talk 20:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Google Earth pictures are not free works in the sense of our image policy, and the licensing conditions on Google Earth you linked to are not a "free license". Google Earth images could only possibly be used in some exceptional cases under a "fair use" rationale, but that would essentially only come into play if, by some rare coincidence, the images themselves (rather than the objects they show) were the objects of discussion in our articles. This is very rarely the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * These would be considered nonfree. Since it would be possible to generate free images of these terrain features, they would fail criterion #1 of the nonfree image requirements, and so they may not be used. As to why they are considered nonfree, the Google Earth policy you linked states "You can personally use an image from the application (for example on your website, on a blog or in a word document) as long as you preserve the copyrights and attributions including the Google logo attribution. However, you cannot sell these to others, provide them as part of a service, or use them in a commercial product such as a book or TV show without first getting a rights clearance from Google." In order to be free, media must be licensed for reuse for any purpose, including for commercial purposes, and must be freely modifiable. The Google Earth images fail on both of those criteria, as commercial use is explicitly forbidden, as are some forms of modification. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)