Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/March

Permission to use Wikipedia images
Dear Madam or Sir, I am writing an autobiographical novel and would like to use some images that I found on Wikipedia. How do I obtain permission to use images from your articles in my novel to be printed by Amazon's CreateSpace and copyrighted by myself. Thank you. Clyde Buchanan — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndicatoRx (talk • contribs) 20:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See Copyrights - Wikipedia itself doesn't own the copyright to content, and accordingly cannot give permission for reuse elsewhere. Most images used are uploaded by the copyright user under creative commons terms, which permit reuse provided the further use is under the same terms (which include explicit attribution and a link to the license terms), but you need to look at the file for individual images (clicking on the image concerned will help you find it), as we also use images under 'fair use', where the copyright holder has not given permission, and where reuse for other purposes may well be impermissible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Nyana kakoma.jpg
I uploaded the photo. But did not tag the license. The image was provided by the uthor. They are yet to respond releaseing copyright. the image will be deleted after March 6th if not tagged. help me tag. --Faintsmoke (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Faintsmoke, have you asked the author to send us an e-mail? Instructions are on this. This is how we verify that the author has released the copyright.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wholesale replication of Creative Commons article?
I have just stumbled across Dunghutti, which seems to have been lifted in its entirety from http://netlibrary.net/articles/Dunghutti. The original is published under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license. Leaving aside the boatload of obvious issues with the article in its current state (e.g. that "Welcome" section...) - does that mean that the text can be used on Wikipedia, if correctly attributed? It doesn't look as if the current editor intends to do much adapting... Elmidae (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(eh, this might be the wrong section. Should I take it to WP:Q?)Elmidae (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, not one of my good days. Apparently http://netlibrary.net/articles/Dunghutti actually links back to Wikipedia! That was nicely circular. While largish parts of the article still seem to be lifted from other publications, it's thus not copied wholesale. Feel free to disregard and/or delete :/ Elmidae (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what tag to use.
New to editing in Wikipedia and the rules. Not sure where this image would fall under. Had to gets copyright authorization from RightsLink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gio1738 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Gio1738, we can't accept special permission: Permission must grant the right to use it, not just you or Wikipedia. If that condition isn't met, then we treat it as if no permission were granted at all. That is, we revert to fair use, and we have strict policies when it comes to those.
 * In particular, we accept fair-use images only when a replacement cannot be found. There are already other fossil images, so I don't think tat condition is met.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Image:Ski jumpsuit.jpg
The image has obviously been deleted from here due to missing copyright information. I was the one who uploaded it and I don't think I would have uploaded it if it wasn't a free image. Can it be revived? G.M. (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is possible to restore it, the place to ask is WP:REFUND. But do you know where you got it from?  When you uploaded the image you tagged it with fairuse.  Clearly this does not meet the fair use criteria.  So where did the image come from, what is the copyright license? In any case the picture does not look good quality, being very tall for its width, heavily compressed with jpeg artifacts, and being sliced so that the left side and right arm of the subject are missing. It should not be restored if there is no use for it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to remind G.M.: the upload was in 2004 (when many people took very little care of image copyrights, of course), and the only description provided was: "Ski jumpsuit {Fairuse} – I got this image from a friend's homepage. It should be able to use as it is." Unless you can hunt down that friend and get a proper license (and they were actually the author), there's no way we could use it again. But then, as Graeme rightly said, it isn't really worth the trouble anyway; we have plenty of better illustrations of such garments these days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Logos
Is there a way that people are able yo use food chain logos on cheerleading hairbows since it is not in the food or drink industry. It is being done everywhere but I want to make sure it is legal before doing it. Example starbucks logo, chickfila, doritos, etc...Just wandering if there is a way around using these on bows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.232.148 (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a question of law; but I would say certainly not, since those are trademarks. But: I am not a lawyer, and WE DO NOT DISPENSE LEGAL ADVICE HERE! -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Using an image of a question from the UK census
Hi. Can I get some advice on whether it is possible to use an image such as this, from the 2011 UK census, to illustrate a Wikipedia article? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed that there's an equivalent image for the US on Wikimedia Commons, if that makes a difference. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * According to the site's copyright page, website material is available under the Open Government License, which is acceptable on Commons. But I don't know if this license is applicable to this image.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Anon126. That page says that all material on the ONS website is covered and, excluding logos, can be used under the OGL. I think that covers it then. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Unsure what copyright tag to add
Hi, I was running into the issue of an image I recently uploaded that I don't know what tag is appropriate for the image. The image is currently used in my Sandbox. It is a image of the crystal structure of a protein taken from Protein Data Bank. The link and the image link are the following:

http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/explore/images.do?structureId=1GOG

http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/images/1gog_bio_r_500.jpg?bioNum=1

May I use this image (I also have seen some Wikipedia articles using images from Protein Data Bank but not quite sure)?

Wilzzw (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * According to the "Usage & Privacy" link at the bottom, "data files contained in the PDB archive (ftp://ftp.wwpdb.org) are free of all copyright restrictions and made fully and freely available for both non-commercial and commercial use. ... Molecular images from RCSB PDB Structure Summary pages are available under the same conditions. The authors of the structural data producing the image and the RCSB PDB should be cited."
 * This is acceptable on Wikipedia. You should upload it to Wikimedia Commons so other languages of Wikipedia can benefit from it. On the "Release rights" page, you should select "This file is not my own work.", then "Another reason not mentioned above". Add the code in the box.   Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. I have done the things as you instructed. It worked and thank you! However, when I use the image, it seems to be a bit off-center. My input is the following:

How should I fix this problem? Thanks in advance.

Wilzzw (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In these sideboxes ("infoboxes"), you can just use the name of the file: File:1gog.jpg, instead of the full image code. This will center the image and remove a redundant inner box. I've edited the box here so you can see the effect.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

UNODC
I'm working with a class at Rice University that is editing Wikipedia articles, and one of the students asked me a question about copyright. I'm not a copyright expert and thought I'd ask here. They have a source published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) which includes this copyright statement: "This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNODC would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source." It looks to me as if text or graphics from the report could be uploaded to Commons, so long as attribution is made. Is that correct? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably not, actually. That license specifies educational and non-profit use, with attribution. Our license (and Commons) requires that material be free for use for any purpose, including for-profit, so the license grant specified appears to be incompatible. Crow  Caw  16:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'll let them know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, Mike Christie, why would anyone want to upload text from a report to the Commons? Surely it can still be quoted (in moderation and with a citation) on Wikipedia regardless of the copyright? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a graph they would like to use; I shouldn't have said text. I let them know that if they can recreate the graph independently they can use that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, Mike Christie. That makes sense. Good luck with the project! Cordless Larry (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the CC BY-ND 2.0 license OK to use on Wikipedia?
Hello!

Are files with the Creative Commons license Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0) permitted on Wikipedia? I thought they were OK when I uploaded this one yesterday, File:Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe with Sue Williamson during his visit to the Museum of Modern Ar t in New York March 27, 2011.jpg but received a message from the image tagging bot. The photo was not modified in any way when uploaded.--Arthistorygrrl (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, unfortunately a "no-derivatives" license isn't "free enough" by our standards. What matters is not so much whether you modified the image when uploading it, but whether we can guarantee the freedom of modifying it to later editors or re-users outside Wikipedia later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I use Google Earth maps in accordance with the parameters given by Google to describe what is NOT fair use.
That is, I deliberately abstained from doing what they said was unacceptable. I tried to find a descriptor for what that entails in wiki code, but found not, so I gave a long, and precise description of how I believed I had complied with Google's Fair Use policy. Unfortunately, a machine read my writings, and was incapable of understanding the English I had used. The machine should then have invoked a HUMAN BEING to interpret my writings. Here is your rebuke to me, and my responses, the first of which was not referenced, possibly not seen. My response to your failure to respond then follows. Sic scribsi:

Speedy deletion nomination of File:BeforeTheAtlantic600.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:BeforeTheAtlantic600.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I did as you said, but you totally ignored my response. I have opened a blogspot on Google, with the script copied from what I posted on Wiki, including the map mosaioc which you found objectionable, and there has been no official response from Google rebuking me for using their copyright material in this way. I think you have been overzealous, but that is your problem. Below is a copy of the Google hits for a search, entered with quotes, thus: "Unzipping the Atlantic Ocean"

Unzipping the Atlantic Ocean tjimpacter.blogspot.com/ 1 day ago - It has not been recognised officially yet, but there are what might be fossil remains of an enormous impact crater centred on a point a few miles ...

Unzipping the Atlantic Ocean: Introduction tjimpacter.blogspot.com/2015/02/introduction.html 1 day ago - It has not been recognised officially yet, but there are what might be fossil remains of an enormous impact crater centred on a point a few miles ...

Unzipping the Atlantic Ocean: February 2015 tjimpacter.blogspot.com/2015_02_01_archive.html 1 day ago - It has not been recognised officially yet, but there are what might be fossil remains of an enormous impact crater centred on a point a few miles ...

Dave at 168 00:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveat168 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Daveat168. I can't see what was deleted, but is File:BeforeTheAtlantic.pdf equivalent to the jpg that was deleted? I see one issue with the pdf right now, which is you say above that you are trying to comply with Google's fair use policy (more on that in a moment), but you also release this file into Public Domain. "Fair Use" means you recognize and acknowledge that the work is copyrighted to someone else, or in this case it is a derivative work of copyrighted material, but that using it here meets certain specific criteria for usage. To do that, you put some Fair use declarations on the image, but you can't release it PD unless you own every bit of it, and it is not a derivative work.
 * Google maps terms of service however specifically state in part: "Unless you have received prior written authorization from Google (or, as applicable, from the provider of particular Content), you must not: (a) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof".. What this ironically means is that you might be ok using the original image under Fair Use if it meets all criteria, but you could not use an image you made yourself based on the Google image.
 * Copyright is one of the few parts of Wikipedia where very little leeway can be given, as it could have real-world legal consequences for the Wikimedia Foundation, so we have to address those quickly. It's usually preferred to explain the often-complicated copyright policy when so doing, and if that didn't happen here, that is regrettable. I will be happy to help out, either here or on your talk page, to sort through all of this. Crow  Caw  00:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Daveat, I checked the file page for File:BeforeTheAtlantic600.jpg and found your original description:
 * "This is a photomosaic derived from Google Earth images. All Google decals have been left in situ, and only duplications have been deleted. This complies with what Google describe as reasonable use, but Google policy is not to give permissions, only to describe what is not reasonable use. I believe I have complied with their implied conditions."
 * This did neither qualify for any free licence nor for our requirements for fair use. E.g. one of the main requirements for fair use images at Wikipedia is that they cannnot be replaced by a free equivalent. In case of Google Earth maps though, there are certainly free alternatives of mapping software that could be used instead. And what is most important, all fair use images must have a rationale as to why the image serves to improve a specific article, and this was equally not present in your file. So the speedy deletion of this image was actually justified. And by the way, is not a machine, nor is  who deleted the file. De728631 (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response, and my apologies to people I accused of being robots. There do arise here, a couple of points.

1/ the tessalations used to construct the photomosaic are not altered in any way, other than the position s of the 'cut' boundaries. everything inside the cut boundaries is as original, except where it contains text which is, or will be duplicated elsewhere on the assembled mosaic. So the derivative aspect of this work is strictly limited to the positions of the cut boundaries, and the assembly of the complete mosaic from the tessalations. Scale, and Rotation angle was retained as downloaded. Only the boundaries or the tessalations were softened, where they disturbed the eye, that is, mainly in the oceanic depths, where there was a pronounced colour change, due to the fact that all the maps on Google Earth were not photographed under identical conditions.

2/ for the purpose of searching for impact crater remains, there is no resource better than Google Earth, because sections of the Earth can be selected, as I selected them, and assembled so, to reverse continental drift. This is essential when looking for seriously ancient crater remains. A rough sketch will absolutely not do.

So the aspects I used, and the 'modifications' of the images were essential to the description, which is why I was CONSTRAINED to use them.

Because of this, and the importance of finding these ancient crater remains, it is essential that this usage be allowed.

Google will not talk to me about copyright, but on the account that I have 'committed the same crime, and posted it on their doorstep", and they have not responded negatively, suggests that they might agree with me that what I have done is to use their material within reason.

You can see what I put on their doorstep by googling, with the quotes, as shown here:

"Unzipping the Atlantic Ocean"

You will in it find, at a larger scale, the image you found disturbing.

I agree that there is a copyright point here, but I further believe, that for the importance of this project, special arrangements need to be made, but Google will not talk to ME on the subject. They might talk to YOU.

Best regards, and Thank you. Dave at 168 09:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello again! To your point 1: what you describe is rather exactly the definition of a Derivative work (see that Wikipedia article, where the Mona Lisa with a mustache drawn on is classified as such). Google's policy specifically prohibits such derivatives though. That they have not responded negatively to your blogspot cannot be seen as approval of that use though. It would take a positive affirmation from them that this use is ok, and even then it wouldn't be usable here unless they not only approve its use, but also release it under a free license. (Our copyright policies are intentionally tighter than what the law requires).
 * To point 2, have you looked into US Geologic Survey maps, which are Public Domain by virtue of being US Government works, or works from other governmental cartography agencies with similar non-copyrighted status? Once you find the locations through research elsewhere, then creating the maps from those PD sources would remove the copyright issue. A possible starting point might be This Very Large Category on Wikipedia Commons (all freely licensed).
 * I understand the importance you mention, but Google and Wikipedia have to stay within what the law and our respective site policies allow. Any special arrangements would have to come from Google's Legal department, as they own the copyright to the current material in question. They're unlikely to listen to me or any other Wikipedia volunteer any more than to you; we're all on the same footing as far as their intellectual property goes. I think your best bet is to use Public Domain maps to build your composites, rather than trying to convince Google to essentially give away a piece of their property. Regards, Crow  Caw  22:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I have found a way out: I did a search for "public domain virtual globe" and found this:

https://marble.kde.org/index.php

This seems to be a public domain version of Google Earth, using the same source as Google use, but that source has, I believe, from what I can read, dedicated the data as Public Domain. You might like to check on this, then make this resource known to the rest of Wiki users and posters. Dave at 168 11:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveat168 (talk • contribs)


 * I think you're on the right track, though that particular site is licensed under LGPL which, while a free license, is not currently considered compliant with ours, according to the legal team. It would have to be one of the licenses listed at WP:COMPLIC. That site is part of a larger project which aims to provide free high-quality maps, so there is hopefully one that fits our requirement. I know this can be annoyingly complex and seemingly inconsistent, and I hope you don't lose heart. Crow  Caw  22:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

How to figure out copyright status of this image
Uhhh I'm very new and I want to create an article about a school in my area so I want to use a picture of the logo. I'm not sure how to figure out anything about its copyright and if it's usable. I don't know what I'm doing when it comes to images. Can someone tell me what to do? http://p3cdn4static.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_932821/Image/Shield-RA-Vector-file.png from the school website http://www.rak12.org/ Iridi (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This would most likely be copyrighted and "non-free" (meaning that permission has not been granted for anyone to use it). If the resolution is reduced, we would probably accept it. However, the policy is that it must be in an actual article, not in a sandbox or draft. So you would have to get your page accepted first before adding the image.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You may be able to upload this logo if you comply with Fair use. Try uploading it to Wikipedia Commons. They are better on copyright issues than most of the editors here. However, before attempting to create an article on your school, please read Notability (organizations and companies).  As a rough rule of thumb, if your school is notable, it will probably already have a Wikipedia article  – if it doesn't, then it is probably not notable enough for a Wikipedia article – and thus anything you create will be deleted. We are an encyclopedia; not Facebook -where anything goes. --Aspro (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Commons does accept any images under fair use; so it would surely be deleted there. —teb728 t c 20:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC) oops s/b "does not accept" (thanks Aspro) —teb728 t c 20:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops! See what I meant. TEB728 is a WC contributor and knows the ins-and-outs of copyright and fair use. Create your article first and submit for review to see if your school is notable enough. Logos can be added later. P.S.  TEB728 missed out the word 'not' after the word 'does' in his post. Hope that didn't confuse. --Aspro (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur with the opinions of others with regards to the logo. As to whether the article can exist here, I think Notability (high schools) offers guidance. The current work at User:Iridi/sandbox is a copy of Conestoga High School and not acceptable in any respect in its current form. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Irid himself states that he is a newbie (or névo editor). It looks to me that he is just experimenting with  using that article as a template. Please do not bite the newcomers Continue with what your doing Irid - do your worst and ignore negative comments.--Aspro (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't intended as a negative, but as direction that it could not go forward like that. Maybe that should be don't bite the regulars. Oh wait, that's WP:AGF :) --Hammersoft (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Maybe you should compose a new guideline for how we support oversensitive editors.--Aspro (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. You're excused ;¬) --Aspro (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant I'd like explanation of your comment. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of an approved image in an article researched, written, and compiled by myself
I am the author of an article on the history of Richmond Bridge (Tasmania) which I wish to append to the existing Wiki article of that name. The subject concerns history of the bridge's original construction and later modifications, the fauna/flora of its nearby hinterland, the research process, and culminating in creation of a commissioned professional painting of the bridge as it was at its inception.

Copyright of the image from the painting is owned by the artist whose approval has been given for its use in public domain. It and my article has been on public domain genealogy website since 2007; the artist also features it on her website.

May I upload the written article with its image copy of the origial painting as a Free Access item or what other category should I register it under in the upload process. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawilson046 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You may included your own text because you own the copyright. We can not however just take your word that the artist has given her consent. If you are in-contact with her, then simply ask her to read: Email templates. So that she can email her consent to Wikimedia Commons and thus make it available to all our projects (and you can then upload it to there or if she uploads the image herself, then no email is required as she just needs to say 'own work' in the 'source' box when uploading). Although we don't allow advertising here, she will be permitted to include a link to her website or whatever. If this is not clear to you, don't worry. We will guide you through the proccess. P.S. A note to other editors.  As this has been on genealogy website since 2007 how best do we protect the text from get labeled later with a Copyvio template? Regardless of the  public domain status (most websites include as a mater -of-course a clause stating  that everything on their site is  owned by them and a future editor may not be able to join all the dots up and try to delete it). --Aspro (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Two questions
I have two questions. I was reading User talk:SPECIFICO, where I found a link to User:Steeletrap whose user page links to Low testosterone which in turn redirects to the Hypogonadism article. I noticed that that article includes an image of a man with the text "Mann mit Mikropenis und Hypogonadismus". This is German. I was thinking about changing the text to "Adult male with a micropenis and hypogonadism." but decided to check the German Wikipedia first to see if the material was copied from there. I found out that the material was added by User:Kleinschwanzms on 26 February 2015‎. This editor also added nine images to Wikimedia Commons in 2015. The metadata shows the images were taken in the period March 2010-July 2013. Web searches for the user's nick "KleinschwanzMS" show it is M.S. apparently an exhibitionist. The former states he is a "Bisexual Cuckold-Slave who offers pussy licking, cock sucking, bareback, piss drinking, shit eating and animal fucking". My two questions are: 1. I don't know the policy, do we just assume that whoever uploaded these images as user Kleinschwanzms is indeed the copyright holder, or should he e-mail OTRS? 2. Do any of the person's off-wiki activities in any way impact our decision to keep or remove the images? Note that editors who expressing certain opinions off-wiki can be blocked indefinitely (for example, per WP:CHILDPROTECT, the view that child-adult sexual relationships are not harmful to children). --82.136.210.153 (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bumping this, to prevent MiszaBot II from archiving it. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bumping a last time. If nobody replies, I guess it's not important and/or everything is fine as it is. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * All the images you refer to are on the commons so it would probably be best to ask over there. There are many such images on the commons but maybe you are suggesting the images are not his copyright to upload. However, most have the metadata from the same camera so on that score I don't see an issue. ww2censor (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

selecting a licence tagging
I try to add a licence tagging into my page "ILSC.jpg" by using edit option, but it seems there is no way to do it !! There are too many explanation links except doing it. Would you please help how to assign it as "free public domain licence"

Thanks, Dr. Orun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orunab (talk • contribs) 05:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The tag to use is .  But you also need to prove your identity, if this has been previously published. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I did don't know why it has not come up as it is my own work thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelle40 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

How to keep the image in wikipedia and to use for page making which is entirely photographed by me only?
Dear Sir,
 * I have uploaded this Image from my computer which is uploaded in flickr too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_in_Paona_Bazaar#/media/File:Cheinpaonabazaar.jpg, I have used this image to infobox while making the page of Che in Paona Bazaar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_in_Paona_Bazaar , And I want to keep the image in there only without any disturbances. Please help how to put the image in infobox step by step, and I always use those images which are photographed by me only.

Thanks in advance for this help

Sincerely Yours Gargi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choudhury.gargi (talk • contribs) 11:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks to be a photo of a book cover. The book cover has its own copyright.  Often it can be used under fair use if there is an article about the book. It does not look like that is the case here.  But you taking the photo of a book cover does not give you a copyright that you can grant.  However if you made the book cover in the first place, then you may be permitted to have it here.  Also the flickr license is all rights reserved.  We don't allow copies of flickr pages with that license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"The Witch's House" (game) logo?
Currently, "The Witch's House" article doesn't have any pictures, or even a picture to display as a logo. I downloaded a picture off of Wikia, and I'm not sure if it doesn't violate copyrights. Could someone help me? Thanks. Thatguytestw 02:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is better to get logos from authoritative sources such as the company. However if there is an article on the game it might be possible to use it under fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By article do you mean like an article on Wikia or something totally different? I don't completely understand the definition of "article." Also, the company isn't really something/someone you can contact. It's like Mortis Ghost for "OFF." He made the game, he gets the credit and-or fame (i made a rhyme. teehee), but other than that he doesn't exist. Thatguytestw 02:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguytestw (talk • contribs)

Use of online video as source on Boris Malagurski
My query relates to the use of this (an online video of an interview):- as a source.

When used as a source (and linked to in the refs), is this copyvio?

I have asked a similar question (relating to its RS status), on the RS noticeboard. Please 'ping' or 'name' when replying.Pincrete (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If the television network itself posts the video (which seems to be the case here), then it is perfectly acceptable.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Gargi 11:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

talk Thanks, so presumably the reason that 'YouTube' etc. videos are often dubious, is if it is not known whether the 'poster' of the video is the 'owner'.Pincrete (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Right.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

how to register logo to make it legal in wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emirates-Transport.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appteco (talk • contribs) 00:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You falsely claimed to be the copyright holder for that logo, which in fact belongs to Emirates Transport. The file has therefore been deleted. Emirates Transport is unlikely to allow their logo to be freely used, modified, etc. around the world, which is the claim you made. Since we don't even have an article on that subject, there can be no claim of "fair use" either. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  04:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Phrased another way, if Emirates Transport is notable as Wikipedia defines that term, and if you or another editor write a properly referenced article about it, then the logo can be used in that article only, as described at WP:NFCI #2. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap
Hi, I've created suburb boundaries on OpenStreetMap, then took a screenshot of the boundaries. My understanding is that OSM has a CC-by-SA variant called the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL). There is no tag for this, but I've followed the copyright directions on the OSM website.

A bot keeps adding comments to my wall, it's getting a little irritating and I can't provide any feedback to the bot author - instead I'm directed here.

The files are:
 * File:Lansdowne suburb boundaries.png
 * File:Georges Hall suburb boundary.png

It is, from what I can tell, a compatible license. What do I do here? Ignore the bot? - Letsbefiends (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * All images need a copyright tag, which would be in this case. (By the way, the ODbL is similar to CC BY-SA, but they are not related.)   Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 12:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be good if the image upload wizard gave this option. Given it's not listed on the copyright tags page, I'm unsure how someone new to Wikipedia was meant to tell? - Letsbefiends (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

copyright
Are we able to use images already uploaded on wikipedia on wiki pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niftyweegee (talk • contribs) 22:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to check the license for each image by clicking the image and reading its description page. If it links back to Commons, then yes, you can use it anywhere. If it is here only, but under a free license (CC-BY-SA) then again yes you can use it. If it is being used under Fair Use, then you can only use it if it meets all of our non-free content criteria, and you have to fill out a detailed rationale statement explaining how its use in the article you want to add it meets those criteria. Feel free to ask about specific images, either here or on my Talk page. Crow  Caw  22:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

permission proof
Will images that I have gotten proof that the author allows me to use it on wikipedia get deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niftyweegee (talk • contribs) 22:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes that is highly likely, especially if the use is only for wikipedia. Images must be freely licenced but if the copyright holder is prepared to release the image freely they should verify that permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * One clarification, permission to use the image only on Wikipedia will not be sufficient. The author must release it under This Free License which allows anyone anywhere to use, re-use, modify, parody, sell for a profit, or basically any purpose whatsoever. If the author is not willing to do so, then the image can only be used here under Fair Use, assuming no free equivalent version exists or can reasonably be created, and the other criteria are met. Crow  Caw  23:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

undeletion
File:Toyota TES-ERA Sports EV proof https://plus.google.com/105233872930050779885/posts/RpPSDovqbdoncept.jpg

Can I get this image undeleted

The uploader agreed to have it used under the 3.0 unreported licence as l long as I give a link to the original page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niftyweegee (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the correct URL is https://plus.google.com/105233872930050779885/posts/RpPSDovqbdo. There is no release under any specific license. Furthermore, we cannot accept screenshots of e-mails. Please ask them to follow the procedure at commons:COM:CONSENT. Anon 124 (+2)   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Gediminas Ziemelis
Dear sir or madam,

Have some problems with uploading photo. I'm employee at Avia Solutions Group company and I need to upload photo of Gediminas Ziemelis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gediminas_%C5%BDiemelis. I have tried it a lot of times, but photo is constantly deleted. Our company has all rights to this photo, we bought it from photographer, what should i do to confirm ownership? Could you help me to solve this problem?

Yours sincerely

Monika Michalovskyte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jklmnopr (talk • contribs) 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Every time you have uploaded this image you have added a non-free use rationale, basically saying that the image is beng used under very limited circumstances. on of these is that it isn't possible to obtain a copyright free or copyright released image of the subject.  As he isn't dead this isn't true and is why the image keeps on being deleted.  If the copyright of the image does belong to your company then it must be released under a Creative Commons licence allowing re-use by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose.  The procedure for doing this is laid out at WP:CONSENT.  Please note the company must own the copyright, your message suggests that you have the rights to use the image which isn't the same thing as owning the copyright. Nthep (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone fix up File:Ecovative design company logo.png tagging
Folks, can someone help me by fixing up the copyright and licencing tags on File:Ecovative design company logo.png (and anything else that is obviously wrong)? I am sure it is easy, but I don't understand it, and I don't upload images often enough to get it right. To be clear this is a copyright logo for a business in the USA used solely on the company article page which I understand comes under fair-use. I thought I had added the correct information yesterday in response to a bot speedy delete alert, but today find another speedy delete alert highlighting another issues. I have run around a few pages looking for how to add the required tags (copyright and licence) without success. It would make me very happy if someone would just fix it! Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for User:Salavat, who fixed this for me with this edit. PeterEastern (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems. Salavat (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Image from A news papers website
What would be the copyright tag for an image taken from a news papers site do not say about its copyright policy? like (http://m.thehindu.com/news/national/one-more-sp-leader-quits/article78701.ece/ ) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejaz92 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you overlook the copyright notice at the bottom left of the page? Generally the vast majority of images found on the internet, especially news and newspaper websites, are copyright, unless they are specifially noted to be freely licenced. The big image on that page is actually attributed to a photographer and they may well own the copyright. Other images don't have that but are still most likely copyright, so unless you have their verified permission we cannot use them. You may find also it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Question about Creative Commons license
Only options given under the upload wizard are CC 3.0 and above. However, I have a SpaceX photo of a satellite deployment which is licensed under CC 2.0 Attribution Generic (CC BY 2.0). Is this considered acceptable? If it is, what should I put as the license information? Appable (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This CC licence is acceptable. I suggest you upload the photo as 3.0 and then edit the file description to change the template from Cc-by-3.0 to Cc-by-2.0. Thincat (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Book cover question - Detroit: An American Autopsy
I posted a small image of a book cover for an article (from Amazon I think) and received a notice staying that it was "non-free" content and it would be deleted if I did not provide further explanation or justification for its use. I remember seeing (someplace) a comment about creating articles about books that it was permissible to place small images of book covers as part of the article. I do not recall exactly where I read that (someplace in Wikipedia instructions pages). Can you guide me at all as to how to find that advice or how to otherwise satisfy the copyright police bot? The article I am talking about is here: Detroit: An American Autopsy

many thanks.

Mdukas (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that it was easier to include a non-free use rationale than it is to explain how to do it. Non-free use rationale guideline talks about it and Non-free use rationale book cover is one way to do it. Then I saw has already done this, seemingly before you had even posted your question. Thincat (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright issue
Dear Colleagues, Today I have created an article Center for Jewish Art, of which I am a deputy director. It is a 36-years-old research institute, which documents Jewish art all around the globe. In the article I put 15 images, which were rapidly removed by Wiki editors since I incorrectly described their copyright. In short, the copyright of all photographs belongs to the Center for Jewish Art and their were made with explicit consent of the owners of the objects. All of them are shown in our Index of Jewish Art http://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php. How should I define the copyright in this case in order to allow those images to appear in Wikipedia? Thank you in advance, Vlalevin (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are the copyright owner, you can verify your permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT, otherwise get that person to release the image under a free licence. Based on the article title I suspect these images were of artworks and such images are derivative works and the copyright of the work usually rests with the artists, so it will be their consent that is needed in addition to that of the photographer. However, depending on the country of the artist, the duration of copyright of older works will depend on that county's copyright laws. This commons page may be of use to you: copyright rules by territory. Please be aware that editing an article for an organisation for which you work means you will most likely have a conflict of interest and should read and understand WP:COI, so you need to edit with a neutral point of view. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

File:HMHB-EditorsRecommendation.jpg
I recently uploaded the title file, trying to follow the instructions in Template:Infobox_album; and have had a message from User:ImageTaggingBot asking me to select the appropriate license tag by reference to File copyright tags and Image copyright tags/All. I have read those pages, and still have not the foggiest idea what to do next. FWIW I'm a retired IP lawyer, and so should know a bit about copyright law, it was part of my day job - but nevertheless I could make neither head nor tail out of those pages. Life is too short to follow up all the sublinks on the offchance of finding intelligible guidance. Help, please. Narky Blert (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you used the Upload Wizard as this would help to fill in the right rationale and license fields. But as it is up, what you need are two templates: Non-free album cover which is the copyright license tag, and Non-free use rationale album cover which is the non-free rationale standard boilerplate for non-free album covers. You can just edit those into the current file page. --M ASEM (t) 02:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

How do I tag an image?
How do I tag a photo that was sent to me to add to a Biographical page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madegray (talk • contribs) 22:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The chances are that you cannot use it. If the person who sent it owns the copyright, and gave written permission to release it freely then use the procedure at WP:Permit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

question about photos provided
I made an article about a living academic, Kevin Schürer. The university he works for released his photo along with other images in a press release ("Images of family trees and Professor Kevin Schürer are available here") Is it OK for fair use, just for his biography, so long as the university is credited? —Мандичка YO 😜 02:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If a person is living, it is assumed that a freely licensed photo of them can be reasonably obtained - so unfortunately, no, we can't claim fair use on that. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 02:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That being said, assuming the university owns the images, it may be worth trying to reach out to the university and seeing if they'd be willing to donate a photo by freely licensing it. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 02:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll do that! I'm sure they'd be willing.   —Мандичка YO 😜 02:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal photos of commercial products.
Can personal photos taken of commercial products, such as this one of a bottle of hot sauce, be uploaded to Wikipedia using "Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication"? I'm not sure if simply taking the photo using one's own camera means that the trademark (or copyright) of the subject matter no longer needs to be taken into account. Would such photos be considered non-free images or derivative works instead? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, I'm not sure if uploading such an image to Commons would be acceptable per c:COM:PACKAGING since the label appears to be an artistic work that is not incidental and not simple enough to exclude it from copyright protection. So, if this image is unacceptable for upload to as Public Domain then maybe that means it also shouldn't have been uploaded to Wikipedia as such. Not sure, which is why I am asking here. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You have it basically right - the labeling on the package is copyrightable (the sun logo at minimum) so a photo of it, with the label clearly part of the focus of the picture, makes this photo a derivative work of the copyrighted art and is thus considered non-free. It would only be allowed to be uploaded here at en.wiki and would need to meet rigorous non-free requirements, which at first glance I doubt it would. A counterexample would be something like this File:Punched_beer_can.jpg where the wordmark logo is non-copyrightable (too simple) and thus the freely-taken photo can be licensed to the PD or a CC license. --M ASEM  (t) 02:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Masem. Any suggestions on how best to proceed? The image is currently being only used in a draft and was uploaded by someone new to Wikipedia who probably is not too familiar with the relevant Wikipedia policy. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Checking the draft page, I'm not seeing where the indicated would fall within NFC - there's the logo of the company that makes that product which is used to identify the brand, which is fine per NFC, but the bottle becomes unnecessary, and thus fails NFC due to the nature of the copyright of the logo in the photo. The image should probably be deleted because it fails NFCC. --M ASEM (t) 03:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, the image was uploaded as "public domain" and not as an NFCI . Does that mean it should be tagged for CSD per WP:F3 or is there another more appropriate way to proceed? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there was a question whether it was PD or not, Possibly unfree files would be the venue for that. What we are looking at here is an image that doesn't immediately fail any of the CSD rules, and should thus be send to WP:FFD for deletion that way, noting that the PD tag is incorrect for this image (per this discussion) and as non-free it fails NFCC (particularly NFCC#1/#3 with the brand logo already there). --M ASEM  (t) 05:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Masem. Does it make a difference who nominates it for FFD? Would you care to? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the file for deletion using WP:FFD. All are welcomed to comment at its entry page. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please delete the file at your earliest convenience. The legal risk of including product shots in Wikipedia hot sauce articles far outweighs any utility they might have. --Xyzerb (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone claiming that they own the copyright to an image uploaded here
I got an e-mail from someone I don't know saying that a company is claiming ownership of File:Herpetotheres_cachinnans2.jpg, an image that was uploaded here and I moved to Commons. The e-mail says the company is threatening legal action against people who use the image on their Web pages. Is there someone who addresses situations of this type? &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As the image is now on Commons I believe you need to address the issue there. The image is visually identical to this one, not that this proves copyright ownership as it could just as easily have been copied from Commons. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've raised it as a deletion proposal at Commons so the experts can consider it rather than just a straight copyio. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Image scanned from a vehicle brochure
Is it ok if I scan & post a vehicle image (Long-discontinued model/s from 1990s) from a brochure, as an accurate & instructive part of a post? Naturally, I would intend it to be for informative 'free content', relating to specific detailing of the vehicle/s. I do not see any copyright infringement in this respect, but need some confirmation / guidance.

Webcor (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That would still be a copyright infringement, as the photographer or brochure creator would own the copyright. Since someone could still take a photo of a 1990s car part it would not be fair use either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem being that the vehicles are rare. Therefore, finding one in original state and photographing particular 'detailing' of it would be difficult. I don't fancy touring the length of the country, or the world for that matter, to find one. Obviously, an original brochure shows an unsullied model, in the 'best light' and as the manufacturer intended.
 * Perhaps I shall write to the manufacturer and ask permission. It would surely be beneficial to them that their past marque was given positive attention...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webcor (talk • contribs) 13:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We understand the problem with tracking down some things, but it does not matter how difficult it is to obtain a freely licenced image so long as it is possible, someday, somehow somewhere, then a non-free image will not be allowed. Sometimes getting a free image of a person is far more difficult then an object of which there are at least a few examples. Asking the manufacturer is certainly an option but don't hold out much hope they will freely licence the image, which means that anyone can use it for anything, but if you don't ask you can't be told yes. ww2censor (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal photo upload
I took a photo of a book cover ("Cartucho," by Nellie Campobello). Am I able to upload this image I took personally to a Wikipedia page? Or must I first submit it to a public domain database or elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrroyals (talk • contribs) 01:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You can upload it here as long as it meets the fair use criteria unless the image on the book cover is out of copyright (it probably isn't). You don't have any rights to the image even though you took the photograph so you should not, for example, list yourself as the author. You must apply and fill in the fair use template otherwise the image will be deleted. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, we do not actually accept images under the US legal term fair use but use a much stricter non-free content policy. So any copyright image you upload must comply with all 10 non-fee content policy guidelines. That being said, book covers are normally only allowable in an article about that specific book and not in the author's article, unless of course it is a freely licenced image. ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, of course. I shouldn't use "shorthand" in these circumstances. Thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What kind of tag/license do I need for a figure taken from American Psychologist?
Hi there,

May I please ask you: what kind of tag/license do I need for a figure taken from American Psychologist?

The image is taken from Jyotsna Vaid, Allan Paivio, Robert C. Gardner, and Fred Genesee. "Wallace E. Lambert (1922–2009)." American Psychologist. 65(4), (2010), 290-291, though it looks like it may belong to the Canadian Psychological Association: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/74373526/Dr-Wallace-Lambert-CPA-Gold-medal-Award-for-Distinguished

Reproduction is allowed under the guidelines of the American Psychological Association.

The following citation is taken from the APA website http://apa.org/about/contact/copyright/index.aspx#required:

"3. Permission is Not Required for the Following:

[1] A maximum of three figures or tables from a journal article or book chapter, [2] Single text extracts of less than 400 words, [3] Series of text extracts that total less than 800 words

No formal requests to APA or the author are required for the items in this clause."

Please advise and thanks ever so much for your time!!

Montreal8888 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! That permission grant appears to be intended for re-use in other scholarly publications. They have a section #6 on permissions for electronic reproductions which includes "APA does not generally grant permission for any use of APA scholarly content on the public Internet or in electronic mailing list". Our license not only allows content to be used on Wikipedia, but further used and re-used by pretty much anyone anywhere for any purpose, which this prohibition would seem to preclude. Crow  Caw  22:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for replying! So it seems I may be out of luck then. But I have noticed that the photo used in the APA article actually seems to come from the CPA here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/74373526/Dr-Wallace-Lambert-CPA-Gold-medal-Award-for-Distinguished. Does that mean that the CPA owns the photo? Or does the APA own the photo? And does this help me at all? Please let me know and thanks again! Montreal8888 (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Paper permission
I recently submitted a wikipedia article about a significant historical event -- this was a copy of an article that I had previously published in a college online newspaper. The editors of that paper have given me written permission to reuse the content in a wikipedia article, and confirmed that I retained the copyright to the material. I included that information in a note to the wikipedia address for donating copyright, sent the note from my gmail address associated with the original article, and included the appropriate tag in my article's talk file to indicate that I had sent the note. After hearing nothing in response for over a week, I want ahead and submitted my article for review, along with a few photos, and suddenly got hammer letters about copyright violations and pending deletion of my submissions. I would appreciate a note from someone, accepting my donation of the copyright so I can reuse my old material. I realize I should rewrite it to use the correct tone, and I can do that in the next week or so. As someone who has worked in the technical publishing industry for 30+ years, I was really surprised at the summary rejection of work by a new volunteer contributor, and the tags flagging me before that, for possible plagerism and self-promotion...

In the case of my two photos, if someone could just show me how to add the right tag to my file, I think the problems could be easily solved. I took both those photos myself, with my own camera - what tag and text do I need to insert to indicate that?

Thanks, Paul (Kor) Gorgen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgenkor (talk • contribs) 01:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is in the wrong place I think Paul---I think you have to ask a separate question. Right now you are in the answering field of my question, which is still awaiting a response. Click on "Click here to ask your question" which is toward the top of the page and include a subject heading Montreal8888 (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a section header to separate this section and the one above; if you'd like a different section title, Paul, you're free to change it. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Sorry for the frustration - dealing with copyright here can be a bit confusing. The problem here is that, while you did email Wikimedia with evidence showing that the content is freely licensed, the editor who reviewed your draft has no idea that the email was sent. An OTRS volunteer (i.e. someone who has access to Wikimedia's email system) has to mark the draft as having proper permission. For future reference, you'll need to mark texts or images with OTRS pending to show other editors that an OTRS volunteer has yet to get to it. I've gone ahead and done that for you.
 * I'm looking at your email right now (I have access) and it looks good; if you could, however, also forward the email you received from the paper giving you the copyright of the text, that'd be great. Thank you! ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 02:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. As for the images, you'll need to add an acceptable free license to them (see this list for a few options). You should also add Template:Information, with the fields filled out. For the source field, simply put own. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 02:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Have permission to use image from owner, but want to make sure that I cover all requirements before uploading
I contacted the marketing representative of Yellowbird Sauce via email and she gave me permission to use the following image in the Yellowbird Habanero Condiment article (currently draft): https://yellowbirdsauce.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/19oz_yb_hab_front1.jpg

She also gave me permission to remove the white background if needed. I don't want to uploading it without satisfying all of the requirements for inclusion in an article.

What should my next steps be? Thank you. --Xyzerb (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You should get the copyright holder to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Xyzerb (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding a list article waiting for approval
Although I've been editing for some time I have rarely dealt with copyvio issues so let me give the background to my question. The article Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century used to include a list of the 100 horses with links to their wikiarticles. Then last June this thread on the talk page Talk:Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century took place and the list was removed. Today I came across this new article The Great Movies and, to my eye, it looks to contain lists that were like the ones removed from the Blood-Horse article so I wanted to get input on it ASAP. If the lists are okay then that is great and my apologies for taking up your time but if they aren't I wanted, who put in all of the work to create the article, to know about it as quickly as possible. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * MarnetteD brings up a very good question. Just looking at the citations for the Great Movies list article, almost everyone of which is to a Roger Ebert source, I'd say that the list itself is most probably a copyright violation, as the assemblage of lists is' a sufficiently creative act to qualify for copyright under U.S. law.  However, I would also say that it is not a copyright violation for any particular film article to note that the film has been listed by Ebert as a "Great Movie".  So I would advise that the article be deleted, but that the information that Firefly has added to film articles can stay, but with the Wikilinks removed, of course. BMK (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not a reason to allow a copyright violation. I reviewed the history of Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century and its talk page and see that back in June 2014 Moonriddengirl removed the copyright notice and her summary stated: "copyright problem removed. PLEASE DO NOT RESTORE. See talk.". She is well versed in copyright and we have discussed some more difficult copyright situation previously. So her views are extremely solid. Such lists that are created specifically by a magazine have required creative input and copying such a list into an article is clearly a copyright violation. However, lists that are based on common knowledge cannot be copyrighted but I'm sorry to say that is not the case in this instance. ww2censor (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the list. I really hate that we have to do this, but it's based on attorney advise. Non-free_content notes that we cannot recreate or partially recreate top 100 or similar lists that are based on creative assessment, and while a "greats" list doesn't rank, it does choose. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and  for taking the time to look into this and for your responses. Your input is appreciated. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Response to SuperHamster's request for a copy of my copyright permission note - sent it to permissions-en@wikipedia.org
I just forwarded the note I'd received from the publisher of my original article, saying that I maintained the copyright and that they had no problem with me duplicating the material in a Wikipedia article. Sent it to permissions-en@wikipedia.org just now to permissions-en@wikipedia.org. Thanks, Paul Kor Gorgen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgenkor (talk • contribs) 22:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Received; I've updated your draft according, thanks! For future reference, no need to start a new section. You may either respond in the original section above, or leave me a message on my talk page. Cheers, ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 23:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Question about posting a photo
Hello there, I have some pictures of very old monuments. Now, I want to post them on Wikimedia Commons but the very big thing this now the place from where I took pictures say-'Taking pictures are forbidden' but I got them when there was no message. So, should have these pictures with my self or post them? I have asked in Teahouse but they suggested me to go here! Thank You  Komchi ✉☆ 12:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * A clear cut answer depends on a number of factors. What country are the monuments in and when did the artist die? Some countries have no freedom of panorama (also see WP:FOP) exception while countries like the USA allow such use so long as the artist has been dead for a sufficent time, which in most instances is usually 70 years pma but even that depends (see commons:COM:FOP and commons:COM:CRT). In general terms your photos are considered derivative works of the original artistic monumnent which is why the artist's death date may be important. I may be wrong but from your edits you are possibly talking about India in which case there is an FoP exception and the appropriate commons template is at commons:Template:FoP-India. The issue of being permitted to take photos or not is a contractual situation between you and the location and has no bearing on the issue of copyright. As you indicate, at the time your photos were taken there was not even a notice, so the point is moot. Please provide some more details then we can better help you. ww2censor (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am talking about monuments of India. It is the City Palace, Jaipur which has a small museum. These pictures(which I have taken) are a month old. I took photos of kings and emperors from time periods of 17th-18th century and some photos of the British India (whose publishers/painters are also probably not alive). I have already read Wikimedia guidelines but because of forbidden thing I am a bit confused if I should upload or not?  Komchi ✉☆ 14:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think from the details provided it sounds like they are safe to upload. Once they are uploaded we can check the template to see if anything needs to be tweaked in the licensing. DreamGuy (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot guys! Komchi ✉☆ 15:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ancient monuments will not be under copyright. For monuments, if they are on permanent display in a public place (even if you have been charged to go in) I believe your photos will not infringe the copyright of the sculptor even if the work is recent. See commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama. "Photos of British India" are a completely different matter. If you have taken photographs of photos or paintings the museum has on display and these are 20th century photos/paintings, they may still be under copyright and there is no freedom of panorama. This is a much more difficult matter. See Copyright law of India. Thincat (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have put down the photos please check them out-
 * File:CityPalace,Jaipur ScenefromDurbar.JPG,
 * File:CityPalace,Jaipur Meeting.JPG,
 * File:CityPalace Jaipur ElephantProcession.JPG,
 * File:CityPalace,Jaipur MaharajaSawaiManSingh2withOtherRulersDuringTheSilverJubilee.JPG,
 * File:CityPalace,Jaipur CelebrationOfDurbar.JPG,

 Komchi ✉☆ 16:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt anyone here will be able to tell you when they were first published (photos) or when the artist died (artworks). All we could do is add 60 years! Thincat (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Besides the image quality being extremely bad, you cannot claim these as your "Own work" because you did not create the photos you rephotographed. As an ex-professional photographer I really doubt these images will add anything useful to an article that could not be described in prose. You need some information about when the images were taken, even if you don't know who the original photographer was. Without that they will likely be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Simple enough logo?
Looking for a second opinion on this: would this logo be simple enough to qualify for PD-logo ? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the US I think the answer is yes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Graeme. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

3O needed on need for 2 separate NFCC rationales
3O needed on need for 2 separate NFCC rationales here. I'm editing per "A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article. The name of the article the image is used in must be included in the rationale." - from the official guideline.--Elvey(t•c) 18:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Writing a separate, specific rationale does not automatically mean the image meets with policy and guideline. In this case, Non-free_content #6 is quite clear; we do not include the non-free image on other articles when there is an article about that image. Instead, we include a link to the hosting article. That is why the rationale was removed from File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg; it is not a valid rationale as we would not permit the use of the image on the photographer's article due to the image already having an article about it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft is right here. There's no allowance at all for the Iwo Jima image to be used other than the page about the image itself under NFCC. (It would definitely fail NFCC#2 on the photographer's page). Removal of the image and the rationale for that page is correct. --M ASEM (t) 19:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Were that that the rationale given for the deletion of the second rationale, I would have had no objection. The rationale given, "Rationale not necessary", led me in a different direction, since it's true that "A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article."  We're in agreement. I re-removed the rationale since the image isn't and mustn't be used in the article on Joe. --Elvey(t•c) 19:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Question
http://asemic.net/

I am trying to use this photo from the website above, but I do not know what the copyright law is or the license. How do I figure this out?

Thank you. Mgokhale (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That image appears to be the work of the artist Henri Michaux who died in 1984, so his work, being a French citizen, is copyright for 70 years pma. His work will be in the public domain from January 2065. ww2censor (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Guidance on artworks to illustrate modern and contemporary Arab art
Hi - I am hoping someone well versed in non-free use can advise me on using images of artworks in the Barjeel Art Foundation wikipedia page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barjeel_Art_Foundation The collection is specific to modern and contemporary Arab art (and is one of the best in the world!). My understanding is that it would be fair use to show artworks as they illustrate not a school of art but an equally relevant classification and one that is typically under-represented online so educational value is high. If someone has time I would really appreciate if you look at my fair use rationale and let me know what I am doing wrong or if it is even possible to allow these onto wikipedia. I think if the article were about modern and contemporary arab art rather than the foundation's collection of them it may be more simple? …or maybe not. Cmclean74 (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt whether the non-free use mavens will like all these! The first one File:Mahmoud Said painting-Recto-Village.jpg looks to me to be out of copyright (by a couple of months!) in Egypt because the artist died in 1964 and Copyright law of Egypt protects for 50 years after death. However, the USA will have restored copyright in the USA in 1996. See Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Number two, File:Standing Figure and Child painting by Khalil Gibran.jpg, is now free because its 50-year copyright expired in 1981 and so it will not have gone into extended copyright in the USA in 1996. If you remove the non-free rationales for ones that are actually free then there is a better chance for what is left. Thincat (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Thincat. I will amend the artworks you have specified. …just one question (for you or anyone else reading) - do I need to re-upload the images and apply the new license and rationals or can I do it on the existing? I'm not entirely sure how to do it on the existing without the guidance of the upload wizard options. …maybe I am being daft here but how do I know the correct tag id? For example I've been searching for what to apply for the Egyptian copyright but not seeing anything. Sorry if this is a silly question! Cmclean74 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are certainly allowed to edit the licensing information in the file description and you do not need to upload again. I have no idea how people are expected to learn how to do this. I have just picked things up over the years by searching around and looking at how other images have been tagged. And, of course, asking here can also sometimes get help. I'll have a look... Thincat (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have revamped File:Standing Figure and Child painting by Khalil Gibran.jpg as best I can. It would be nice to record the date when the work was created and when it was first put on display but I think it isn't crucial in this case because the copyright term depended on the date the artist died. PD-Art says your photography does not attract copyright in the US, commons says it is PD in its source country and so is allowed to be on Commons, PD-URAA says its home copyright expired before 1996 so it is PD in the US and PD-old-70 says the artist died more than 70 years ago and so will be PD in many countries in the world. Thincat (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Quotation of small portion of text on each of numerous articles, potentially adding up to quoting the whole text
Hi! I've been on a Japanese classical-period poet-bio spurt in the last few hours. I've added quotations of Peter McMillan's 2008 translations of the Ogura Hyakunin Isshu to the articles on several of the original poets. In theory, I could keep doing this for all 100 poets in the collection, but would this be a copyright violation?

The translations themselves actually make up only a tiny portion of his full text in terms of word-count (each one is less than thirty words, and the book includes about a hundred pages of introduction, notes, etc.), and I'm obviously not uploading scans of the calligraphic representations of the poems and images of the poets, etc. that decorate the pages on which the translations themselves appear.

But what does everyone else think?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Is what I'm doing even appropriate? Many of the articles previously gave the Japanese text of these poems with no translation, and in Japan the majority of the poets are best-known for these individual poems (Japanese schoolchildren memorize the Hyakunin Isshu). Another option would be to quote different translations and only give a few poems from each. Each of these poems have been translated into English at least a dozen times. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Is a 100 year old photo usually safe as a public domain copyright in commons?
I uploaded a pic this old. I know only one existing book uses this image, and it is out of print with a loose copyright, last renewed around 1958. I am a distant member of the family that may still get royalties to this copyright, but fairly certain the majority of this book still purchased is sold as a used edition only. A few dealers will print the book on request in a paperback form but I'm not sure if a copyright is still held. The Life Story of Abe the Newsboy with US Navy, Hero of a Thousand Fights, 1930 (First Date of Publication), Published by Abraham Hollandersky, Los Angeles. Originally Abe Hollandersky held the copyright, and held it for all the editions he published. He is a distant relative.

Anyway, thanks. I could contact Amazon, but I don't know how to determine if anyone is receiving royalties for any of the editions that are ocasionnally printed other than the printer. I've been unable to find any family members that know about if any copyright still exists.

PS: I have only the one 100 year old picture (taken in 1914) which Hollandersky freely distributed to many, many newspapers, all prior to around 1950, mostly before 1930. Thanks.

THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Commons can be difficult sometimes with files that obviously seem to be out of copyright (but so can Wikipedia). The question you're likely to be asked is whether the photo was actually published before 1930, without a copyright notice.  If the owner of the photo copyright, Hollandersky, actually distributed the photo to newspapers, and especially if they printed it, then it is in the public domain being published before 1978 without a copyright notice. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am in the US and there are two images I would like to use in a trailer for my victorian mystery that will be published in June (in both UK and US) I found them both on Wikipedia:


 * File:Sherlock Holmes I.jpg and File:Sherlock Holmes.jpg


 * Both give this information: '''Public domain This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.


 * Dialog-warning.svg  You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years, Russia has 74 years for some authors. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Côte d'Ivoire has a general copyright term of 99 years and Honduras has 75 years, but they do implement the rule of the shorter term.


 * This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.


 * MY QUESTIONS: GIVEN THE LAST SENTENCE ABOVE, THAT IT IS FREE OF KNOWN RESTRICTIONS . . . DO I NEED A US PUBLIC DOMAIN TAG? IF SO, HOW TO I OBTAIN ONE? THE SOURCE FOR EACH OF THE IMAGES WAS http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8950/holmes/fh-bosc.jpg, BUT GEOCITIES HAS GONE OUT OF BUSINESS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Varadan (talk • contribs) 21:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Those two Sherlock Holmes images are on the commons and have been unquestioned for almost 9 years, so they can be used in any language wiki and you need do nothing else but add the image code to the article you want to add them to. The fact that geocities is no longer hosting images does not change the copyright status of the image which happened to be there years ago. UK law applies to the British artist per this commons webpage and none of the scenarios would make these copyright as Sidney Paget died in 1908. BTW, please sign your posts by adding four tildee like this ~ as a signature to all discussions and talk pages but not to articles. ww2censor (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)