Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/October

United_Party_of_Canada logo violating copyright of Liberal_Democrats
While the fair use rational for the logo on the United Party of Canada page may be valid with respect to being the logo of that party, I think the party's use of it also violates the copyright of the Liberal Democrats. Is there grounds for removing it while the copyright status is clarified? Otus scops (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While you may be right, the trademark (not copyright) violation is not on our part, but on the part of the UPC. I see no reason why this nullifies our fair-use rationale for the logo's use in the UPC article. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike. I thought that might be the case, but I wanted to be sure.  Otus scops (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Book cover art from author's site?
Just double-checking, but is it acceptable to use cover art for a novel which the author has on their personal website? I'm looking for an image for an article draft I'm currently working on, and the other Wikipedia articles about books in the series have all gotten them from this one site. I just want to be sure, though, and I can't find any way to contact the author to ask for her permission (though I suspect the publisher owns the rights anyway, and I can't find the right contact info for them either). Thanks in advance. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi 2ReinreB2. Book and album covers, etc. are often uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content. You may be able to do the same if the cover you wish to use satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Please note, however, that all 10 of the criteria need to be satisfied and that criterion number 9 (WP:NFCC) states that non-free content may only be used in the article namespace. In other words, non-free content cannot be used in drafts, on userpages, on talk pages, etc. Therefore, I highly recommend that you wait until your article has been accepted before uploading the cover to Wikipedia if you decide to go the non-free route. For reference, "non-free" on Wikipedia typically refers to content which is protected by copyright or only made available subject to certain restrictions imposed by the original copyright holder, whereas "free" generally refers to content which has been freely licensed for use by anyone for any purpose. Neither word on Wikipedia is related to the cost or lack thereof associated with procuring the image. So, even if you can download the image "free of charge", it may (and often likely is) considered to be "non-free" for Wikipedia purposes. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You should also be aware that non-free book covers are generally only acceptable in articles about that title and not in the author's article, but from your contributions it looks like you are improving actual book articles, so you should be ok. When you do upload the image make sure to use both a fully completed Non-free use rationale book cover and a non-free book cover template (click on the links to see how to use them). ww2censor (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that clears up my questions. I was planning to wait until after the article was completed and passed review (fingers crossed); now I'll be sure to. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Another possibility, is that as the author has a website he may well included a link where you can contact him – authors love feed-back. Ask  him if he is willing to email and ask the artist (who designed the cover) click on this link:  and email in a OTRS to us. Pointing out that artists love to get examples of their work to a larger audience, and to have just 'one' book cover artwork placed on a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International copyright license is a win-win situation for all. The artist, the author, Wikipedia, Wikimedia et, al. Try  it .--Aspro (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Another thought, is to think out side the box. For instance, We have an article on the John Rocco who does brilliant covers for authors like Rick Riordan. If you wanted to request an OTRS off of him for instance, you could leave a message on the Talk:John Rocco  talk page and hope that he may see it. Everybody reads Wikipedia and creative people are no diffrent. They are rightfully proud of what they do and often like  to see some feed-back.  So, if we have an article on the artist that create the cover that your looking for, he may well be looking at it and reply – or maybe he won't. Yet, at least ask. Actual,  John Rocco is a good example as we have no examples of his work. It maybe that he controls his work very closely because this is his livelihood. However, we can guarantee that he can retain his copyright to anything uploaded under the  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.--Aspro (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Given industry practice, the strong odds are that the copyright is tightly held by the publisher, not the author nor yet the designer. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Then the one to ask is still an artist like John Rocco as he will know (in-side-out) what his contractual terms are with all his clients.--Aspro (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Grave photo
Do we have the right to publish a grave photograph, i.e. File:Alekos Panagoulis.jpg ?--Vagrand (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * While the photo is so small to be de minimis in the original image, cropping it makes it no longer de minimis. Greek copyright lasts for 70 years pma but we don't know who took it or when, or if it was even published. Besides which the subject died a young man of 36 in 1976, so this image is at most around 50 years old even if taken when he was 20 though he looks older than that. Based on the facts this image is copyright but could be used here as a non-free image and on those wikis that allow such usage. I'm not sure the other 7 uses can use a non-free image. You should move it here because I will tag it for deletion on the commons. ww2censor (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

My Own Barnstar
I have created my own barnstar by editing the original barnstar in paint. How should I correctly upload it? Catmando999  Check out his talk page!  10:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of different versions of the original barnstar with different licences. Please show us the original file you used for making your own version so we can determine whether it should be a "share-alike" version of Creative Commons. Generally you should upload it at Wikimedia Commons under a free license of your choice and credit the source file and its author. De728631 (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Need to have image taken down immediately for copyright reasons
Hello,

I need the following image taken down ASAP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triple9_poster.jpg. This image is not available to the public yet and it needs to be taken down. Please help.

Jamie


 * Deleted under CSD#F5, unused, non-free media. Yunshui 雲 水 21:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Santa Claus Conquers the Martians
The article about the 1964 film, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians has an external link from the Internet Archive. However, when you click on the external link to see the film on IA, there is a message that reads:

"ATTENTION – PLEASE READ BEFORE VIEWING OR DOWNLOADING THIS ITEM: The uploader of this film has labeled it as in the public domain in the United States of America. But this film may not be in the public domain in the rest of the world. The copyright for this film is owned by STUDIOCANAL in all countries outside of the United States of America where copyright subsists and all rights are reserved by STUDIOCANAL. Per Internet Archive’s Terms of Use, users assume responsibility for ensuring that their viewing and/or any other use of materials on archive.org is legal in the area/country in which they use it."

I'm well aware that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. At the same time, I'm also aware that Wikipedia is a website that can even be used outside of the United States. Therefore, is it a copyright violation to have this IA external link in the article? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No, because the enwiki servers are located in the US, so as the statement says it is in the public domain in the US but it also says, for non-US viewers that: users assume responsibility for ensuring that their viewing and/or any other use of materials on archive.org is legal in the area/country in which they use it. which means non-US must take responsibility for their own decisions. ww2censor (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Zoran Zaev.jpg
An hour or two ago I uploaded an image of the Macedonian politician Zoran Zaev as File:Zoran Zaev.jpg, for use on the subject's page and on Macedonian general election, 2014, after plowing through the directions for using two templates and searching the web for free images. I explained my rationale on the File source page:
 * Unable to find any clearly free media. Most of the images I've found are either from commercial sites such as the BBC, Reuters, and Getty, or from sites in Albanian and Macedonian, neither of which I can read.

Just now has left a  on my Talk page, telling me

Plainly, he didn't read the rationale I'd put there.

I had forgotten to add the "Non-free media rationale" templates to the two pages where I used it; I've gone back and done that. I just went to the description page and found

in the wikicode at the very top. I added

right underneath it, but that doesn't show in the display, so I have added the same text without template to the head of the Summary.

I can't figure out what the heck else I'm supposed to do. Would someone kindly tell me clearly? --Thnidu (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

PS: I know that the top of the page says to take fair-use questions to another page, but this is where sent me and this is where I have gone. --Thnidu (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for you, the problem is actually very simple. The image is non-free and we do not accept non-free image of living persons even if it is very difficult to find a freely licenced image. You may well have written what you consider is a decent fair-use rationale, but it will still be deleted because it fails the most basic tennet of our non-free media policy. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to understand the many of the issues non-free images have. ww2censor (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. I did read your disputed rationale at the time of editing the page. Because of the options you selected when going through the upload wizard, the page was automatically tagged as a replaceable fair use image with the generic  template, which doesn't provide the uploader with a very detailed reason for why the image is tagged for deletion.  I read your dispute rationale, which stated, in part, I am unable to find any clearly free media. Most of the images I've found are either from commercial sites[...].  Based on your rationale, I decided to replace the generic AutoReplaceable template with a human-evaluated deletion template to address your rationale.  That is why I stated The test is not whether a replacement exists, but whether one could be created.
 * Per WP:NFC#1, all non-free images of living people are presumed to be replaceable, with very limited exceptions in cases of totally inaccessible people, like prisoners. It doesn't matter if an existing freely-licensed image of the person can be found right now.  What matters is that the person is still alive, and therefore someone could take a freely licensed image of them.  Ultimately, after the 48 hour waiting period, my deletion tag will be weighed against your dispute rationale by an administrator who reviews the deletion request and they will make the decision.  I hope this helps explain my process for modifying the deletion tag on your image. Cheers, Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 19:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. That makes me feel somewhat better. But I wonder where those other pix on the election page came from? (I know, I can check their pages.) --Thnidu (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * All the other images on Macedonian general election, 2014 appear to be correctly freely licenced images not like your upload. You can review their sources on each image file at the commons. ww2censor (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you! I will do so, in hopes of finding suggestions for Zaev. I was going to look at them, but other things (like the cat) have interrupted. --Thnidu (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:S. Van Campen & Company - Salesmans Sample of Kensington Tiles - Google Art Project (6973621).jpg
and File:S. Van Campen & Company - Salesmans Sample of Kensington Tiles - Google Art Project.jpg

Hi, Why would this be in the public domain? It is not 2D art, and AFAIK, Google claims a copyright over its pictures. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Greetings. That image is a photography that faithfully reproduces something that looks like a table with a face etched in to me. It's too old to be still in copyright and making a faithful reproduction in photo form does not create any new copyright.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Yann that since the pictured objects are reliefs, photographs of them must be free (with a free license or in PD) to be accepted on Wikimedia, under the usual consensus. This brings the question what are the actual origin and copyright status of those photographs? Perhaps someone familiar with the relations between the Brooklyn Museum and the Google Art Project can tell more, but my impression is that they are from the Brooklyn Museum. Their respective pages there  have no contrary indication, and that seems to allow the assumption that they are from the Museum and thus under the default status of the photographs of the Museum, CC-by 3.0 . So, I would say those photographs are not in the public domain but under the free license granted by the Museum. If the files are uploaded to Commons, the template C:Template:Art Photo might be used, with the adequate status tags. On Wikipedia, an equivalent result can be obtained.  -- Asclepias (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Both Yann and Asclepias are correct that these are 3D images but Jo-Jo Eumerus' reasoning is not correct as that would apply to 2D images. As 3D images of old objects you do however require the permission of the photographer which appear to be the Brooklyn Museum and they seem to provide that. However, curiously the museum on the one hand provide a Creative Commons licence cc-by-3.0 that we accept at the link given above but they contradict that licence in the statement on this webpage which has a commercial restriction that is a cc-by-nc-3.0 licence. ww2censor (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agh... The statement on their Copyright page was so clear that it didn't occur to me that they might have made a conflicting statement on another page. You are correct. There is a contradiction. We can't ignore it. It makes the free license statement useless. The files should be deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh. Learn something new every day... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I don't think this is a case for deletion as much as a case for asking them to clarify their copyright policy. It could be a case for double licensing or of one page being wrong. If they stand by the noncommercial thing then it should probably be removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed we should to clarify their licencing, not just for us but for them too. I decided to see if their copyright page was on the Wayback Machine and I see that between 2004 and 2007 their Creative Commons licence was a cc-by-nc-nd-2.0 but there is no record of any changes to the page between 2007 and 16 June 2015 when the revised licence cc-by-3.0 appears. Obviously they updated from 2.0 to 3.0 but it could be that the NC and ND was removed by mistake or their policy changed. Who will take on the task and make contact and what approach should be taken? ww2censor (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This issue is resolved; the images are good as is. I made contact with the museum today and spoke with the Vice Director of Digital Engagement & Technology who deals with copyright issues. See the similar discussion on the commons at c:COM:VPC. ww2censor (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Images with unknown copyright and origin
Editor Osmond Phillips, a very new editor, has uploaded a number of images in the recent past, purportedly of notable American western figures. These images are all part of the so-called Phillips Collection. The collection of "over 200 photos" is reported to have been found by two individuals in the Downtown Antique Mall in Checotah, Oklahoma somewhere between 1995 and 1997. The images are claimed to be of famous Western figures including "Doc Holliday, Big Nose Kate, Wyatt Earp, Josephine Earp, Mattie Earp, the Clanton's, Johnny Behan, John Clum, Jesse James, the Younger Brothers, the Masterson family, and others." The owner of the images independently deduced "that the collection might have been compiled by Frank Phillips [who founded the Phillips Petroleum Company] because there may be photos of Mr. Phillips or his family mixed into the collection."

Phillips has uploaded the images to Commons stating that they were all taken prior to 1923, but Phillips has not provided any proof of this. I truly believe that some of the pictures are in fact of the individuals stated. The likenesses are very clear, though in a few instances, less so. I'd really like to help get the images accepted as valid. They are a wonderful contribution to the historic lore about the individuals who they are supposed to be pictures of. I think the collection itself is notable and may merit an WP article itself.

However, because Phillipes is the uploader of the images, it's obvious his simple declaration of their provenance, that the images are all pre-1923, and that they are of the people stated does not appear to be sufficient meet WP image use policy.

Issues:


 * Phillips isn't the creator, so she or he can't release them into the public domain.


 * There isn't any evidence to conclusively prove the images were produced prior to 1923.


 * Phillips hasn't provided any sources to substantiate that the images are of the individuals named.

I've asked Phillips to provide some third-party sources to establish that the images were taken before 1923, or proof that the studio on the image closed before 1923, or other evidence. I suggest that he provide third-party expert opinion that the images are of the individuals named, or other evidence that the person's names were written on the images, etc.

As the owner of the images, if Phillips can clearly establish the authenticity of images of famous historical figures, Phillips could be greatly rewarded financially. Because this is a complex issue, due diligence is required.

What standards should WP apply in this instance? — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a note that, no matter what the case, to be PD under PD-1923 the images would not only have to have been taken before 1923, but also published. US copyright law determines copyright based on year of first publication. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Authenticity above all else seems important here. Even if we can't support the date, but can verify these are photos of the people they are claimed to be of, that means where we lack free media we should be able to use these as non-free (at worst assumption) to depict the persons of those articles. If they do end up both authentic and pre-1923 or in PD, even better. How to judge authenticity is something that I'm not sure how WP can go about, short of either Phillips getting an ORTS statement to that regard (to protect privacy, etc.) or having an expert in the field review the pictures for authenticity. I would think that if this has been a find that has existed for some time and publically known, there would have been a great deal of interest in it before, as well, to judge that. --M ASEM  (t) 23:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Convenience link to Commons: Special:ListFiles -- Asclepias (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Surely some of these image, if never published, are only copyright for 120 years, so images such as File:Dave Rudabaugh.jpg who died in 1886 and File:Johnny Ringo.jpeg for example should be in the public domain? Images for people who died before 1895 would all fall under the same situation but others are a different matter and need more verification. ww2censor (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's assuming the uploaded image is actually Dave Rudabaugh. The provenance of the images is largely uncertain. Phillips hasn't yet revealed how they know if this image (and the others) are of the person named. This collection of images was found in a couple of photo albums in an antique store. Some of the images were loose and unmounted. No one has stated if they images were labeled or not. Should WP rely on the statements of Osmond Phillips as fact? — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 17:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That goes without saying but I suppose we need to say it. ww2censor (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * M ASEM, if an ORTS statement were sufficient, do we need one for each image? And what would it say under these circumstances? — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * One ORTS statement would be sufficient to cover them all (they would all need to be linked in that message). I'm not saying that that's necessarily going to be the accepted statement but it would be start to discretely keep the person's information private to only the ORTS list but engage with them to verify the validity of the photos (and not that they may be actors or well-done photoshopped images). -M ASEM (t) 17:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * M ASEM, ww2censor, Asclepias, I've asked Osmond Phillips to join the conversation here twice. They've replied to my talk page instead. In short, they don't own the images, but have been hired to promote the collection. I'm not sure where this leaves this discussion, but it appears to me they have to obtain the OTRS email from the actual owner. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 03:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

PHILLIPS COLLECTION. OSMOND PHILLIPS The collection wasn't know to the public until recently. The second owners they have researched the collection for almost twenty years. The owners did not know what to do with it as far as getting the collection known. I was hired to promote it.

There are a few photos that has the actual persons name on it. Others have relatives names on them and a few friends. We do have forensic results back on Josephine Earp. A article will be out the first of November if not earlier on her. We are only doing forensic analysis on Josephine Earp, Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday, Big Nose Kate Horony, Jesse and Frank James, John Wesley Hardin and Billy the Kid. These are very high profile people. It cost a lot of money to get these analyzed by Professor Cary Lane.

Something to consider, the chance that anyone can find even one look alike in their life time has odds against them like winning the lottery. The Phillips collection has over 200 look alikes. The collection has another 100 photos we still have to research. Obviously someone researched the families of these people and purchased their photographs. The photography companies were in business during the of time of the people photographed. We also believe the owner advertised in National newspapers to buy Old West outlaws and lawmen. We do not submit any photographs unless we are certain it is who we say it is. We have a team of 8 people. By submitting a photo of someone that is not who we say it is can hurt the credibility of the collection. I have over 25 years experience in Western Antiques. There is over 80 years of experience on our team.

We are and will be completely responsible for what we submit.

We even have a group of photographs of Kate Horony, Doc Holliday's companion that will prove that the photograph that has been know as Josephine Earp in books for over 50 years and on the internet is really Big Nose Kate Horony. This collection has many interesting clues that will make a difference in the history of these people. Some of the ways we identify the people in the photographs. 1. Forensic Age Regression Analysis on high profile people by a leading Professor of Forensic Arts from John Jay College in New York. Professor Cary Lane teaches Forensic Arts used in law enforcement. 2. Visual comparisons of authenticated photos. We have a lot of experience since this collection is so large. We are using Professor Lanes suggestions to help identify the people. 3. Making sure the photography studio was in business when the person was there. 4. Checking the age and death date of the person at the time of the photo was taken to make sure it is possible. 5. Look for the name of the person on the photo card or a relatives name that it may have been sent to. 6. Try to match hand writing of the person photographed when there is writing on the photograph. 7. Identifying the extra person or persons in the photograph which is usually a wife, husband, family member, members or co-worker. Identifying more than one person in the photograph increases the odds dramatically. 8. Checking to see if the person could have been in the city when the photo was taken. 9. Contacting descendants of the family to see if they recognize the person from their family photos or possible resemblance. We have had positive results from a family member of the Jesse James and John Wesley Hardin photographs. 10. Check with museums to get their opinion on the people they specialize in. 11. Send out Press releases to find out more information on the collections origin and/or its individual photos. 12. Made sure the clothing worn in the photograph matches the style worn when the person was purported to be there. 13. Matching clothing and jewelry from other photographs of the person from the collection and authenticated photographs. 14. Comparing known locations of the persons travels with the collection photographs. 15. Noting how many photos we have of the person and family members in the collection which leads one to believe that they were purchased from the family. 16. Studying the type of photograph as to when the photograph process was available and when it faded out, regarding CDV's, Tintypes, Ambrotypes, Daguerreotypes, Cabinet Cards etc. 17. Look for identifying marks on the person such as moles, scars etc. that are know about the person. 18. Since Cabinet cards were popular for around 35 years, we also have to study different characteristics through the years of use such as color of card, artwork and print on the card, card borders and edges, the photographic paper, etc. to narrow down the span of 35 years.OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC) I also have a signed contract from the owners that allows me to promote the collection. I can submit a copy of the contract. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This all sounds like fairly reasonable steps to validate the photos. I think we would still want to make sure that we have documentation that this is what has happened which can be kept private/secured via OTRS so that all appropriate images can be tagged PD-old with the OTRS ticket number if the question arises in the future. But I would wait for additional input from others here before doing that. --M ASEM (t) 14:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OTRS would indeed seem like the best way to go. ww2censor (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I have completed the OTRS process. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The Lodger
I have come across an article from The New York Times implying that the 1927 Hitchcock film The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog is still under copyright. The article says, "Oddly, even though Hitchcock’s early films have rights holders, that does not appear to have stopped versions from going on the Internet. The 39 Steps, The Lodger and others are online as supposed examples of public-domain works." There is currently an external link from the Internet Archive on that particular film article. Is this video link violating Wikipedia's copyright policies? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Short answer, yes, it's a copyvio link.
 * Long answer: The Lodger and several other of Hitchcock's films produced in Britain did expire in US copyright terms by 1996 though remained copyrighted in the UK, as while the US did ratify the Berne convention in 1989, it did not ratify a specific section that would have extended the copyright. Instead, in '96, the US did pass the URAA which restored copyright to any foreign films that were still copywritten in their home country as of 1996, of which many UK Hitchcock films did apply.
 * This would still require the copyright owner (Carlton and UGC) to submit a list of films that would be entered into the federal register that once in place, would require any persons selling public domain versions of these films in the US to stop selling those within a year before any copyright prosecution would be considered. Carlton did that in 1997 with the UK Hitchcock films including the Lodger. As such, the expiration of this film is not until normal copyright term. (This page  is a great explanation of what has occurred).  Ideally we should let the IA know that this is a non-PD work, pointing to the above links as the problem. --M ASEM  (t) 23:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: In that case, do you recommend that all Internet Archive external links currently found on the Hitchcock film articles be removed from Wikipedia? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This logic only applies to those that are produced in UK; the hitchcock.zone link above has a comprehensive list that can be backed up via the links to federal registers (any film on that list, we should not have an EL to the IA version of the film). I do not know off hand the copyright status of US Hitchcock films though that same link does cover those aspects. --M ASEM (t) 22:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You are referring to this list, correct? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ignore that question; that was rhetoric. In that case, I will remove those IA external links from those film articles. Thank you again. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Help tag uploaded media
I uploaded this file this evening: File:Guide_to_the_Literature_of_Photography_and_Related_Subjects.pdf but was not sure how to properly tag it. When I first uploaded it I was unsure of the license, but I later found a tag identifying it to be public domain. Was not sure how to adjust the description/tags so I added the note as a comment below the existing license tag. I'm sure this is probably not properly formatted and am hoping someone can fix it / properly format it for me. Thank you.

David Condrey  log talk  08:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Colors in map of Israel Railways
How critical is it that our map of the Israel Railways (File:Israel Railway map Hebrew English sb.svg) lines use the same colors as the original, copyrighted map (at http://www.rail.co.il/HE/Tickets/Map/Pages/map.aspx)? Keep in mind that the colors are neither any marking on the actual infrastructure (trains, stations, etc), nor the names of the lines (unlike the MBTA lines, where the colors are, in fact, both). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that can create some concerns about derivative works. The amount of creativity required to make something copyrightable is very low and shared colours that don't serve an ulterior purpose may create some derivativeness. I am not an expert in this matter though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

How do I delete a .jpg I have uploaded by mistake?
I don't see an obvious delete option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremysale (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . I believe you need to have an administrator delete the file for you. This can be done by adding the template db-g7 (click on the blue text to see how the template works) the top of the file's page if you satisfy the conditions listed at WP:G7. If you're not sure how to do this, post the name of the file here and an administrator will help you or add admin help to your user talk page or the file's talk page and administrator will post there. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Photos from issues of Life magazine with expired license of 28 years
Can I use those photos of Life magazine even if their licence is expired? See c:Category talk:Life (magazine).--Vagrand (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The list of issues on the category talk page is a relatively recent addition by a user. You may decide if you trust that list or if you check personally. But it seems consistent with some other discussions. So, if we assume that that list is correct and that the copyright on this issue was not renewed as a whole by the publisher of the magazine, it does not mean that all its contents are out of copyright. As can be seen in the credits page for this issue, some parts of the contents were already copyrighted by other sources external to the magazine. The copyright on some parts of the contents may also have been renewed independently from a renewal of the magazine by the publisher. I assume your question is about the photographs by Dmitri Kessel (1902-1995) on pages 21-27. Some external sources say that he was a staff photographer for the magazine at some point, but the impressum on page 16 in this particular issue does not list him in the list of the staff photographers of the magazine. For what it's worth, Getty images sells licenses for some photographs by Kessel from those years in Greece, from the Life picture collection . For better certainty about the copyright status of his photographs, you may want to check copyright renewals in his name and maybe look for more information in newspaper articles and books about him and his works. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On page 21 it says that he is Life War photographer. So he belongs to the staff of the magazine. I think that the magazine owed at that time the copyright of the pictures because Kessel was an employee, that's right?.--Vagrand (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He certainly took war photographs for Life. But what was the contractual status at that time? He is not in the list of the staff photographers. Anyway, if, after research, you conclude that the photographs are out of copyright, I suppose Commons would accept them. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Groningen in 1930
Hi! What macro or template can I use to specify the source of an image? I am trying to provide source info for File:Groningen_Grote_Markt_1930.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmsma (talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First we do not know if this photo was ever published but even if it was published in 1930, then URAA would kick in because it was still in copyright in 1996. The normal term of 70 years pma would be 2000, so the copyright tag is incorrect and the source page does not provide any copyright information. Unfortunately this needs to be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Creative Commons permissions question
Hi - I posted an image yesterday (File:Bryan_Johnson_2015.jpg) that was originally published on Flickr with a CC 2.0 license. (I included a link to the Flickr page with the image.) I was under the impression that the CC 2.0 license gave me permission to republish the work elsewhere, but the image was marked for deletion and I was asked for proof that the creator agreed to release it. I'm a little confused - can somebody clarify for me? Thanks so much! (Update - I just added the CC 2.0 tag to the image file - does that help at all?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueHorseshoe (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The copyright tag looks valid. Imma call here to explain.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The free license tag was added after I placed the speedy tags; when I tagged the image, the speedy tag was valid. I have now removed the speedy tags. Steel1943  (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oi. Seems like I misread the history. It did read to me like you tagged the page after the license tag was there.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While the Flickr tag does look correct the image has no camera details in the metadata and the Flickr user has only uploaded two images. This is always highly suspicious and I will normally question the veracity of such Flickr images. Some people will steal an image from somewhere, upload it with a free licence to Flickr and then upload it here even though they are not the actual copyright holder. At the time there was no licence tag and no permission which is why the image was tagged by . Actually it looks like this image was copied from Facebook and is attributed to Randy Murray Productions not a Flickr account called OS Fund (people can basically name their Flickr account anything they like), so we would like to have an OTRS verification for this one. It may be valid but who knows for sure so I am going to nominate it for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking, but I wasn't 100% sure. I didn't think that all images uploaded to Flickr were automatically granted a free license. Steel1943  (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I don't know who Randy Murray is, but I'll email the group and see if I can get explicit verification. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueHorseshoe (talk • contribs) 00:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Asking is always a good idea because you cannot be told yes if you don't ask. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Own work
The image i uploaded is my own work but still received a copyright violation notice. Please help me get around this problem.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpansarerahul (talk • contribs) 17:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Using images from a non-profit web page, with permission of the non-profit, would prefer non-commercial release
Good morning,

I received six notes from a bot regarding images I uploaded to my sandbox. I have the National Association of Rocketry's permission to use these images, which originally appeared on their website, www.nar.org.

The NAR has asked that we restrict the rights to non-commercial use only, suggesting the Creative Commons cc-by-nc 2.0 license. I realize that's incompatible with Wikipedia guidelines, but the article will be incomplete without the images. Do you have any guidance on how to handle this, with an example or two?

Thanks!

--SidelinedAV8R 15:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SidelinedAV8R (talk • contribs)
 * Greetings. Well, if there is permission, is there proof somewhere? Also, "prefer noncommercial" does mean "OK you can do it but please don't" or "Don't do it"? Sandboxes cannot get non-free images, which is what this one would be.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response, Jo-Jo.

I have an e-mail from the president of the organization, granting permission. That's not exactly public, but I do have it in hand. I plan to move everything from the sandbox to the the page "National Association of Rocketry." The organization would prefer non-commercial, but we all guess that it's more important to have the photos on the page than to worry too much about commercial exploitation of them.

I guess that means we're leaning toward public domain after all, but I'd appreciate a sanity check from you or another experienced Wikipedian. Thanks!

--SidelinedAV8R 16:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SidelinedAV8R (talk • contribs)


 * Just get them to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT where there is an example of the text to be used for a copyright confirmation verification. Then one of the OTRS team will handle it directly with them in private emails. They can choose one of the free Creative Commons licences shown at WP:ICT/FL. It does not have to be a public domain release, they can still require attribution. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Some copyright problem...apparently!!
Hi,

I recently got a message from someone claiming that an image that I uploaded months ago, doesn't qualify for some or other copyright policy.

File:Vojvodinas_Party_HQ_pic.jpg

It has been a pain just uploading the image, far less going through the myriad of completely disperate "rules", trying to figure out whether some leftist, liberal policy is being butthurt. I have neither the time nor the inclination to even try going through the tonnes of self-proclaimed rules, extremtly implicit in their wiki-style lack of any kind of clarity, that even Deep Blue couldn't get a grasp of, just to find out how to post a reply to this person! As such, this is being posted here.

I would appreciate it if the image in question, could be attributed to the author already named. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OblacniVoz (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Because the author of the image is not you as it appears to from the different names and your phrasing, then the copyright holder must verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT where you will find the exact suggested text and email address for sending the permission verification. I'm sorry but we cannot just attribute an author to an image without their verification. In future if you use the upload wizard, by clicking on the "Upload file" button on the left sidebar, it walks you through the upload process and simply asks for answers along the way. If you can't answer them then basically you can't upload the image. It's actually quite simple despite your experience. ww2censor (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And there is nothing inherently "leftist" or "liberal" about the protection of intellectual property! -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

where do i respond to the questions raised
'''hi

where do i respond to the questions raised, directly on the page itself?'''

Where did this image come from? Who created it? Who holds the copyright to this image? Unless this information is added to this page, the image will be deleted one week after 12 October 2015. Remove this tag when you provide the information. Administrators: delete this file.

image with unknown copyright as of 2015-10-12 (CSD I4) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imtiaz772 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the informations go on the description page of each file. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

AŞAĞIDA BELİRTİLEN ENGELLEME NEDENİNİ ANLAYAMADIK
BİZ TRTAJANS AİLESİ OLARAK TRTAJANSIN RESMİ PATENTLİ FİRMA SAHİBİYİZ KULLANICI ADIMIZIN ENGELLENME NEDENİ NEDİR? TRTAJANS RESMİ OLARAK BİZE AİTTİR. HER TÜRLÜ BELGE VS PATENT FİRMA SAHİBİ SALİH KURT ADINADIR. TRTAJANS ULUSLARARASI BİR MARKADIR.

Kullanıcı:TRT AJANS♂ Bu engellenmiş kullanıcı, 2 yıl önce üye oldu, ve toplam 7 değişikliğe sahip. Son değişikliğini 1 yıl 4 ay önce yaptı. Vikipedi, özgür ansiklopedi. Stop x nuvola.svg	Uygun olmayan kullanıcı adı seçiminden dolayı, bu kullanıcı adıyla Vikipedi'de değişiklik yapılması süresiz olarak engellenmiştir. Engelleme kaydına bakınız. Farklı bir kullanıcı adı ile, aynı e-posta adresinizi kullanarak kayıt yapabilirsiniz. Kategoriler (++): Vikipedi:Süresiz engellenen kullanıcılar (−) (±) (↓) (↑)Vikipedi uygun olmayan kullanıcı adı engellemeleri (−) (±) (↓) (↑)(+) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRT AJANS (talk • contribs) 17:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Burada İngilizce Wikipedia'sıdır. Siz sadece Türkçe Wikipedia'sında engellenmişiniz. Engellenme nedeni hakkında Türkçe Wikipedia'sındaki yöneticileri sormak lazım.
 * (This is the English-language Wikipedia. You have only been blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia. About the reasons for your block you will have to ask the administrators at the Turkish Wikipedia.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Her dil Wikipedia kendi politikaları vardır, ancak Türk Wikipedia'da politikaları burada İngilizce Wikipedia'da benzer olduğunu varsayarak, ben adı bir şirketin adıdır çünkü hesabınız var engellendi olduğunu tahmin ediyorum. Bir şirket bir hesabınız var olamaz; sadece bireysel bir hesabı olabilir. Bir birey olarak sizi temsil eden bir kullanıcı adı ile bir hesap oluşturmayı deneyin.
 * Each language Wikipedia has its own policies, but assuming that the policies on Turkish Wikipedia are similar to those here on English Wikipedia, I would guess that your account there was blocked because the username is the name of a company. A company cannot have an account; only an individual can have an account. Try creating an account with a username that represents you as an individual. —teb728 t c 18:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Wilson A Head
The image I had on the article "Dr. Wilson A Head" was removed. I would like to know why none of the followup images that I subsequently loaded to take its place have not been accepted to post on the article. These subsequent images that I loaded on Wikimedia Commons were personally scanned for me by members of Dr. Head's family and sent to me by email in the hopes that one of them could be used to go with the article. There is no copyright infraction with these images, as they were taken directly from the family members' own personal scrap books.

Katsheron (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Katsheron, did you do one of the steps Anna describes above? &mdash; Sebastian 22:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, SebastianHelm - Do I retry uploading the same image on Wikimedia Commons following that advice?

Katsheron (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ownership of an image, and ownership of the copyright are not necessarily the same thing, and very commonly involve two different people. Today, it is not uncommon for a photographer to give a photo to the subject and agreed to turn over the copyright, but in years past this was the exception rather than the rule. If person A takes a photo of person B, prints it and gives it to person B or person C for a scrapbook, the copyright holder is person A, except for those rare cases where the photographer transfers copyright. Just because someone has a photo in a family album one cannot assume they on the copyright. This is a royal pain, because many many people are willing to license the photographs and not at all happy when we press them for the permission statement from the photographer. In many cases they do not even know the identity of the photographer. In other cases they know the name but have no contact information. In some cases they may be reasonably certain the photographer is dead but unless they been dead for 70 years we still can't use the photo.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

What if the subject of an article agrees to use their picture?
By Anna Frodesiak's initiative, I have been reminded of the desperate need for pictures in BLPs, so I asked a person about whom we have an article if I could use their picture. They gave me permission by e-mail (without actually specifying the exact picture yet); what is the next step? Does somebody need to confirm the e-mail? I want to make this process as painless as possible for the person, since they wrote that the hassle of the answers to the upload form already prevented them from doing this earlier. &mdash; Sebastian 01:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've asked for and received dozens of photos using mostly scenarios 1 and 2:


 * 1. Don't know them. Write to them. They say fine. I ask them to either upload themselves or email pic. They email pic. I upload with me as uploader, they as author. I tag with . Email them User:Anna Frodesiak/OTRS asking them to do OTRS. If they send the email, fine. If not, it gets deleted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 2. Don't know them. Write to them. They say fine. I ask them to either upload themselves or email pic. They upload themselves. I tag with . Email them User:Anna Frodesiak/OTRS asking them to do OTRS. If they send the email, fine. If not, it gets deleted.


 * 3. Know them personally. Write to them. They say fine. I ask them to email pic. They email a pic. They donate the pic to me. I upload with me as uploader and owner. Done.


 * Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Make sure you and they understand that they can't simply provide permission for photograph of themselves. We need permission from the copyright holder, which we presume is the photographer unless there is some evidence that the copyright has been transferred to the subject.
 * As an OTRS agent, one of the most common problems (typically occurring multiple times a day) is a person uploading a photo of themselves to Commons and sending in a permission statement to OTRS stating they are the copyright holder and releasing it. Sounds good but unless they've explained how the copyright was transferred from the photographer to the subject (or other explanations such as selfie or self timer), we have to reject the permission until that explanation is provided or they arrange for the photographer to send in permission.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice. I had a hunch about that and worded my copy of Anna's request accordingly; I just made the same change on her page here. In this case, the picture in question will be one the person paid for, so I would presume they bought the copyright, too. But I'm not a lawyer, it wouldn't be the first time I'd be surprised about legal matters being different from what common sense dictates. &mdash; Sebastian 23:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * On second thought, this does get more complicated. What about the attribution? It always refers to the copyright holder, not the creator, right? What about the year? The picture may be a year or two old, do I need to worry about that and trouble them with that again to find out the year, or can I just write this year? &mdash; Sebastian 23:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You cannot simply assume that if they paid for the photo they own the copyright. Unfortunately, I have personal experience. A few years ago I saw a cartoon I particularly liked and arranged to purchase it. The fee was negotiated, I made the payment, and am now the proud owner of the original drawing of the cartoon. However, the package also included a notice that I was the owner of the original artwork but not the copyright, which means I could not reproduce it provided to Commons or use it on a T-shirt. (I have seen it on a T-shirt but it wasn't me.) Sorry to take so long, but I just want to reiterate that when they explained they purchased the photo you have to have them clarify that the purchase included not just the photos themselves but the copyright.


 * The attribution issue is generally easy. At the risk of oversimplifying, it is whatever the copyright owner wants. As for the date, it is nice to get it approximately correct unless it is relevant to the subject of the photo.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is quite common for commercial portrait photographers to retain copyright. They sell a package of prints but keep the original negatives or digital files. Unless the photographer has transferred the copyright in writing, it must be assumed that the photographer or their estate holds the copyright. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sphilbrick, please re-read what I wrote above and look at the link I provided. I am not "simply assuming"; the text clearly requests for them to confirm that they are the sole copyright owner. If you feel that text is not good enough, please feel free to edit it there; this is a wiki, after all. &mdash; Sebastian 02:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Remember that it was you who said " so I would presume they bought the copyright, too".
 * Sorry, I realize I did send out mixed messages; lesson learned. My intention with "presume" was just to muse; I felt that by rewording the mail, I was already one step safer than what others did, and reacted strongly because I saw your reply as another unexpected hoop I had to jump through. &mdash; Sebastian 06:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The point I am making and Cullen328 is supporting is that it is quite common for people to buy photographs and not realize that if the purchase agreement does not specifically include the copyright it doesn't come automatically. This is something that comes up several times every single day at OTRS permissions. If someone uploads a photograph of a bird or a tree or of some other person in claims they are the copyright holder, we generally accept it (although there are times we have to take additional steps to confirm) but if they send in a photograph of themselves we invariably ask for confirmation that the copyright has been transferred to the person providing the permission. We do not generally simply accept that if someone says they are the sole copyright owner they know what they're talking about. (Some exceptions: uploaders whom we've dealt with previously, professional photographers who generally understand the rules, obvious selfies).
 * Your proposed wording is fine, but if I receive that permission statement at OTRS and the owner name is the same as the subject of the photo, I'm going to follow up with a request for clarification, so you can make the process easier for everyone if you let them know that the permission statement should be supplemented with a clarification of how the copyright was transferred in the case the owner name matches the subject.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  02:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern is to not burden the person with more red tape, so it won't make it better if you ask them. There are two options: (1) My hope still is that in this case, as it is a commissioned photograph for the promotion of the works of the subject, it is unlikely that the photographer would complain. But I have to trust your experience with that. (2) If there is a significant risk, and someone has to ask them, then I think it would be a smoother process, easier for everyone (except me) if did so. Would the following wording be OK? " I am very sorry, the process is more complicated than I was made to believe. It turns out, in addition to the form I already sent to you, Wikipedia also needs an explicit clarification of how the copyright was transferred. Moreover, it would be nice to have the approximate copyright year." 06:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We do have email templates for that when we attend to OTRS tickets. On you other point, more often than not the photographer retains copyright even on commissioned works, typically the photographer grants a right to use which is not the same. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  07:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question. I would like this section to be for the question What [a normal user should do] if the subject of an article agrees to use their picture?. For discussion of the email templates, please see c:Commons talk:Email templates, where I tried to focus on that side of the discussion. &mdash; Sebastian 07:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC), amended 07:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Be aware that Anna Frodesiak/OTRS now differs from the source Commons:Email templates. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the "creator and/or sole owner" is for them to clarify which (or both) of the two the person email us is. And when they say they are just the copyright holder and not the creator, we ask for clarification on how they own the copyright. In some cases the creator asks for attribution, in some cases they don't. I think the Commons template is good as is and perhaps you could just transclude that template as it would reflect any changes (if transcluding here isn't possible, then make this page on Commons and do an interwiki redirect or something). &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there may still be a chance to improve the template. But I will post that's at c:Commons talk:Email templates &mdash; Sebastian 06:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC), edited 06:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. To let you know, these both exist: Donated artwork/OTRS form and User:Anna Frodesiak/OTRS. I would prefer neither is transcluded, but rather I can do regular checks to see what's new at commons. This is because I give the link at IRC for the one in my space, and artists may be using the one at donated works. They sometimes click edit to get a copy of it and the transclusion will confuse them. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Anna, let's move this discussion to User talk:Anna Frodesiak/OTRS. &mdash; Sebastian 06:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Author's Own Photo
Hello, I created a wiki page for Karen Dawisha, and have acquired 3 photos to upload. But I am confused about the question of licenses. Through correspondence with the author, I have received the following information: "...all three [photos] are in the public domain. The one with Putin is mine, taken with my camera. Head shot is public, taken at Miami U. I hold the copyright for my book [cover]."

The problem is that no one has a physical copy of a license for these photos, particularly given those taken with the author's own camera. She has given explicit permission, but can I post them? How do I answer wiki's questions about whether I possess a copy of the licenses, when there are no physical licenses in existence?

hannacarol

Hannacarol (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * physical licences aren't an issue. What needs to be put forward to Wikipedia is the written consent of the copyright holder to the re-use of the images.  There is a procedure for this laid out at WP:CONSENT.  The two images from her camera are pretty simple, the book cover might be a little more difficult as in practice it tends to be the publisher who owns the copyright on the book jacket not the author.  This would need to be explained in the email submitted. Nthep (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Image file Ginn Hale
This image was deleted recently because I had failed to make the copyright clear.

The image was sent to me by the owner specifically to add it to the Wikipedia entry. If I want to restore it, how do I explain that in the file entry, and how specific (for example re. name of the copyright holder) do I have to be?

liade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liade (talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Did the copyright owner publish the image elsewhere? In that case, he'd have to put up a Wikipedia-compatible license on that publication. Tell him also about Donating copyrighted materials; that indicates the various procedures for these situations.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

UK Open Government Licence for LIDAR data
With the UK government releasing high-res (2m to 25cm) LIDAR data of most of England, it makes it possible to create images of archaeological sites that there are no other free (libre) maps for.

I've just downloaded some data, and had a go (here for this hillfort), and am now having some doubts about whether this qualifies as a libre image, and if so, how to tag & attribute it correctly.

The data was downloaded here, and seems to be released under the UK Open Government Licence v3: any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks. &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 22:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Just tag with OGL-attribution  --Aspro (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Cheers; following the links there I found more info on Meta (here), and the Commons template . &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 10:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

images have been posted on commons by V587wiki, exists all over the web
Example
 * commons image File:WS-20 1.jpg
 * web image https://pbrasil.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/chineses-apreentam-o-turbo-fan-para-a-familia-de-jatos-c-919/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strak Jegan (talk • contribs) 16:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. These are already being dealt with at Commons. De728631 (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Still file remaining

File:WS-10 2.jpg

--Strak Jegan (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-free magazine covers
Hello, folks. I understand that there is concern about using non-free magazine covers. But I also understand that much of this concern is about using magazine covers that depict photographs of persons. My question here is about literary magazines whose covers depict a scene from one of the stories contained in the magazine. As an example, consider the magazine cover shown. Its cover depicts a scene from a particular story by a particular author (here, Clifford Simak). In the instant case, the cover has passed into the public domain for reason of non-renewal, but my question is -- what if it wasn't in the public domain? Could it still be used as non-free content in an article about that particular story? By way of background, I note that these magazines typically feature new (i.e., previously unpublished) stories and that the Wikipedia articles on the stories routinely identify the magazine (and issue number) in which the story was first published. Thank you for your attention to this question. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * From a non-free content stance, I would say that the use of a non-free image of a cover of the magazine that a short story appeared in is accept if:
 * The story is notable on its own (separate article) so that the cover image is being used as infobox or lead image.
 * That the cover art is specifically for that story. In the example image, if that art cover was not about the work "Time Quarry", and that it's only highlighted on the cover in text, then that would not be an appropriate use of that magazine cover for that story's page. But if it is about "Time Quarry", then that's fine.
 * That there's no other potentially free image that does a better job of being the cover art or illustrative of the work than the magazine cover. --M ASEM (t) 23:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would change Masem's last point: A potential free substitute need not be "better" than a non-free image (except in the sense of being free). It need only serve the same encyclopedic purpose. —teb728 t c 00:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify what I meant. Take a random story and I could argue that a free image of the author would be freer image than the magazine cover, but on the article about the story it's not a great replacement for that purpose (though the free image can certainly be loaded into the article body). On the other hand, say that the author did some illustrations themselves that are out of copyright but fairly represent the work (much like Lewis Carroll's illustrations for Alice in Wonderland); those would be a freer replacement for the cover for the article about the story. --M ASEM  (t) 01:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On a related point, I've lately uploaded a truckload or two of free sf magazine cover images to Commons. When an issue used an installment of a serialized novel as its cover story, I've added that image to the article about the novel, but not as the article's primary image. I don't see such magazine images as serving the same function (especially as to identification) as the image of the actual book does, and therefore leave the book cover in place (usually in the infobox), even if it is nonfree. Does anybody see problems with this approach? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am assuming that you're basically putting it in the body, with some caption "Story name appeared first in Issue ## of Sci Fi Work"? As long as the cover image is free, this seems perfectly acceptable use. --M ASEM (t) 16:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments and advice. The points about checking on the validity of the illustrations are well taken. As a practical matter, I will not be writing articles on stories that I haven't read and, indeed, will be re-reading them as I finalize the articles. Doing that will place me in a good position to verify the appropriateness of the depiction. Thank again. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with the above, but would add that, when possible, it's a good idea to verify that the cover actually illustrates the work in question. All The President's Men was (partly) serialized in Playboy, but the cover rather definitely didn't represent the book, even though the cover text played up the book prominently. For sf/fantasy magazines like Galaxy, mentioned above, it's a good idea to check the issue listing at ISFDB. Here, for example, is a magazine cover which prominently mentions a story by Asimov, but the cover illustration actually depicts a story by a less-well-known writer who isn't even mentioned on the cover. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is important. I've come to learn that often in the 70s and 80s sci-fi books and magazines would often use imagery produced for-hire that had little to do with the work at hand (for example ''Ender's Game's cover is pretty much disconnected from the actual work), though obviously as the book's first cover, this is appropriate. In the case of a short story in a magazine, Hullaballoo's point is spot on. --M ASEM (t) 17:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is older than that. In the 40s and 50s, for example, artwork was commonly done standalone and purchased for inventory, and the editor would just pick any old painting that might more or less match something.  (Or not.)  Campbell used to point to paintings to authors in need of ideas, those of course matched well, and authors were sort of guaranteed the cover! Choor monster (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

How can I keep a picture up?
So today I posted a picture a friend of mine took this summer. I asked this friend if I was allowed to use it, and add it to wikipedia. He allowed me to, so I posted it to use in an article I am working on. It has been flagged now and will be removed if information is not added on the copyright. How do I source this image and stop it from being taken down? I intend to keep it on my article that is for a class assignment due soon. The image is File:Scugog soccer field.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKCWilkinson (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Because this is a public place in Canada (from what I read), we would need to have this image available as a freely licensed image (under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or in the public domain); those tags you can find at WP:ICT/FL and one would need to be added to the image. As your friend took it, it is up to him to make that call, which is where the difficulty comes in. If your friend wants to upload that image with a new Wikipedia account, that would be simplest way to get the image up on Wikipedia with the right attribution and free license tag. Another similar option would be if they put it on a website like Flickr where they can assign the CC-BY or CC-BY-SA tag, which then we can take as evidence to use here at WP. If neither works, you will need to have your friend send an email to the OTRS as described WP:CONSENT to allow you to upload the image and tag it with a free license.

How to upload?
How would I correctly upload this image found here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catmando999 (talk • contribs)
 * You wouldn't, I'm afraid. That looks like a non-free image of a living person to me, and per WP:NFCC we don't use these usually.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will try to find a better one. Catmando999   Check out his talk page!  09:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this image sufficiently attributed?
Probably trivial, but I don't know my way around licensing etc. yet, so some guidance would be appreciated.

The image File:Mormopterus planiceps.jpg was uploaded and added to Southern free-tailed bat by an editor who is not the owner of the image but claims to have received permission by the owner to upload it here, provided it is credited correctly (see statement ). I see no reason to doubt them, but I wonder if the image will have to be attributed differently at Commons then (not just with a website ref). Can someone clarify? I have removed the image from the article until that is cleared up. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this up. You're right in that we need a proof of permission from the photographer. I tagged the image a Commons and notified the uploader. De728631 (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Public Domain of newspaper photos
Is a photo published in an Irish newspaper in the public domain? I haven't been able to find a reference in the Wiki pages to tell me.Garranes (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Usually not, but you'd have to tell us which photo.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a photo of an artist taken at an art exhibition in 1994. Do you need more details than that?  Thanks.  Garranes (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A photo made in 1994 is recent enough to be copyrighted. Unless the photographer put it in the public domain.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If I get permission from the photographer to use it, how would I advise Wikipedia of this? Is there a way to post an email response?  Thanks again.  Garranes (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:CONSENT. It has a more detailed explanation.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Can an image scanned from a book be classed as "Own Work"?
Example


 * commons image File:Junkers JU-46.JPG

The image appears to have been scanned from a book, which I've not yet identified and then edited to remove most of the text on the page. The editor then classed this as "Own Work" however I am not sure this falls under that category and may need to be deleted.

Graham1973 (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Nominated for deletion. Thanks for reporting. Yann (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

How to upload?
Is there a way I can correctly upload this image found here? If not, is there any photo of him I could upload to Wikipedia? Catmando999  Check out his talk page!  00:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * the copyright page on the Albany website lists the conditions under which the content can be reused. As they specifically exclude commercial reuse then the only way would be with written consent from the council as per one of the later paragraphs. Nthep (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I will know put this question out there:

Professional Photos
For copyright were do professional photos fall.

I have a an image of Dal Dhaliwal given to me by her and the photo was taken by her photographer. Where does this fall under copyright.RockinWebsites (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Just ask Dal Dhaliwal if she would  ask her photographer to email in an OTRS to us for that image. More specifically, to fill in the template in the box  here  Commons:OTRS, then cut & past it into an email and send to : permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. It would also bring the photographer's  work to a wider audience. Without that, we can not use the image.--Aspro (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Mansfield Smith-Cumming
There are multiple images of Mansfield Smith-Cumming, a British man who died in 1923. Are these eligible for inclusion in the article about him? If so, what specifically would be needed on the file page at Commons? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Usable?
I have a question about this image. I'd like to upload it to Wikipedia for the article for Lucy Addison, but I was unsure about the copyright. The book was published in the 1920s and it's currently hosted at the Internet Archive. It looks like it's been republished, but I know that this does not always mean that the images would be copyrighted.

Do you guys think that this would be in the public domain? The re-release of the book appears to be copyrighted, but I'm not sure if that's for the book itself or the things that the publishers added. I know that the book Wuthering Heights is in the public domain, but print books will still have copyright notices so I'm unsure on this. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Images published in the 1921 book can be uploaded to Commons with the status template "PD-1923". Although the book unfortunately does not provide information about the illustrations, it is reasonable to assume that they were published with the consent of their respective copyright owners. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Good to know! I'll try to get this uploaded sometime tonight or tomorrow. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Please I need assistance here
Please iIneed assistance on creating page here. Most of my work here are being deleted and I don't know why. All the information are true and correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesoro77 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You should probably ask for help at the Tea House.--ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Question on copyright of images from the 1920s/1930s
I've been working on Marilyn Monroe's article, and am looking for images to illustrate the section about her childhood. I can find several photographs of Monroe as a child (she was born in 1926 so I presume mostly taken between 1926–1935), but have no idea about whether these kinds of images are copyrighted? Presumably none of them were copyrighted at the time as they would've been just normal childhood photos taken by family members, yet Getty Images is confusingly making money by licensing them: http://www.gettyimages.fi/photos/marilyn-monroe-child?assettype=image&excludenudity=false&family=editorial&page=1&phrase=marilyn%20monroe%20child&sort=mostpopular I'm currently in the process of taking the article to FA level, and an image of Monroe as a child/teen would be a wonderful addition. I've read through the WP guides to copyright issues, but still don't trust myself on this topic. Any help would be appreciated! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * It depends about publication. If they were not published until recently, they are still copyrighted. If they were published without a copyright notice, or the copyright was not renewed, they are in the public domain. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So if I find a magazine from let's say early 1960s with an image of Monroe as a child, it shouldn't be copyrighted, unless there is a copyright notice in the magazine? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Possibly yes. See c:Commons:Hirtle chart or File:Copyright rules chart 2014 - Peter B. Hirtle, Cornell University.pdf for details. Yann (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Rapid KL Logo.svg
Seems to me that this should be PD-textlogo. Any dissent/objections? Useddenim (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems like text, yeah. The underlying SVG may be copyrighted though - in this case we might need a freely licensed rendition.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested change to main image for Heroes Reborn (miniseries) article
I noticed that there's a comment on the talk page of this article mentioning that the image currently used in the article as the series logo is actually a fan-made image and not the actual logo, as its description and fair use rationale state. The talk page comment also includes a link to the main NBC page that has the actual logo, and I'd change this myself but I'm not at all familiar with working with images on Wikipedia, and since the desire is to change a preexisting image it seemed complicated. Can someone with more experience please swap the logo out for the correct one? Sorry if this isn't the right place for requests like this. Just hoping to get the attention of someone who knows how to do this. —2macia22 (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Detroit Industry Murals
The Detroit Industry Murals were painted in 1932 and 1933 in a public location, which qualified them for "publication" under contemporary US law. Were paintings subject to renewal at the time, and if so, when, and how would the renewal have been made known? Like with books, would the painter have had to renew them in the 28th year, and would the renewal have been published in a normal place like the Catalog of Copyright Entries? I'd love to undelete the full-resolution editions of File:Rivera detroit industry south.jpg and File:Rivera detroit industry north.jpg and re-mark them as PD-art. In case you're wondering, I've checked the full-resolution editions without finding copyright notices, but full-resolution is still small enough that we can't be anywhere close to sure. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Adblock image
i would like to upload a specific adblock image white list photo the white list image is at the pagefair blog does it meet fair use criteria--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

http://blog.pagefair.com/2015/adblock-joins-abp/
 * Most likely not because it is information that could easily be conveyed by text alone. See Non-free content. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 04:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

[Untitled]
I am writing a Wikipedia article about a singer. Can I take an image of him from one of his facebook photos?115.164.210.131 (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Most likely not. If you gave more specific details, I could take a look at the case. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 17:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Updating a logo
I recently spotted that the logo for the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association is out of date - they changed it a couple of years ago - so I thought it would be straightforward just to change it, using a copy of the new logo from the HCSA website. I filled in a detailed form whilst using the image wizard, but, I have now had a message saying that I need to provide even more information.

I don't know about the "copyright" or "ownership" of this image, so perhaps I am not allowed to upload it? --Guineveretoo (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, your upload is fine but the fair use rationale was still a bit weak. For this type of "artistic" logo we have a special rationale template: Non-free use rationale logo. I updated the file page accordingly so that's now ok. De728631 (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

biology
TOXANOMY living organisms like cocraoch, house fly termite clasication are kingdom1, phyllum2,class3,order4,family5,genus6,specimen7 COCROACH CLASICAFICATIOM 1 animalia 2arthropoda 3insecta 4dictyoptera 5blattidea 6periplaneta 7peripluneta Americana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.143.83 (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello. I can not find or infer any question here. This seems like a declarative statement and I cannot imagine how it interfaces with a copyright question, i.e., what this page is for. In other words, you will need to clarify what you are after if you want any help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox and Images
Have uploaded images to compose article in sandbox and do not want them speedily deleted. Will rationalize copyright permissions before submitting article. Is this feasible.

S051125E — Preceding unsigned comment added by S051125E (talk • contribs) 18:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Only if they are free images, unfortunately. WP:NFCC means that non-free images may only be added if the article has been moved to articlespace.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Image of Titumir
I uploaded a image of Titumir, a Bengali hero who was fought against British and Bengali landlords few days back. Now, I found the image in a popular newspaper in Bangladesh. Newspaper doesnt have a clear description of his image. What to do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amfmaads (talk • contribs) 11:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a genuine photo or painting etc made at the time of the person's life, this would be public domain for sure (made before 1831). Looking at your image upload File:Titumir.jpg it sure looks to be fairly old, but compressed very highly as a .jpg. Being in colour means that it could well have been published more recently though, so it would be good to get more info on that image. But you could make a good claim for fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As he was dead by 1831, there can be no photos, so any image is likely to be an artist's impression and the colour image (I presume this one) seems to just be a coloured interpretation of this black and white image. We really should know who and when the images were made but there are no attributions but if you comply with all 10 non-free content policy guidelines it may work. As an alternative you should know that Bangladesh does have a Freedom of panorama exception per c:COM:FOP so the mosaic shown on this webpage could be photographed by a wiki editor and freely licenced or ask the college to release the image freely and would make a suitable image for the article. ww2censor (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Message from Stefan2 re photo for David Reynolds, British historian
I have provided some explanation in details on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David_Reynolds_with_FDR_wheelchair.jpg

Not sure how to frame this according to your wiki criteria. This is a publicity photo of me, taken by the film company with whom I make documentaries and used by them for publicity and by me (with their permission) for my website. Further advice would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJR17252 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The copyright in the photo probably belongs to the film company, assuming that the human being taking the photo was doing so as part of their paid employment. Unless the film company is willing to license the photo for further re-use, including re-purposing, derivative works and commercial re-use, you would be better off getting somebody to take another one who would be willing to license their work. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Henk van de Ven
Are there any good pictures of him I can upload? Any? Catmando999  Check out his talk page!  00:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this Henk van de Ven? Did you search Flickr or ask the mayors office to release an image under a free licence or ask an Australian wiki editor to take a photo? ww2censor (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, him. I will follow your suggestions. Thanks. Catmando999  Check out his talk page!  10:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I scoured Flickr. Nothing (yet). Catmando999   Check out his talk page!  20:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

But, there are many good images on the Border Mail website (an example) but I don't understand the copyright. Are any of them useful? Catmando999  Check out his talk page!  21:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Best to create new image or try to use official one
Hi, this may be the wrong place to ask, but I'm trying to determine how best to handle a chart depicted in a novel. The chart has two different forms, and is a representation of something similar to Morse code. Form 1 and Form 2. As far as I can tell, there are no online copies of the original chart except on sites like Tumblr, and I'm assuming that those copies are probably not good for meeting Wikipedia's copyright standards.

Is this a case where I should try to create an original representation of the chart (using some kind of painting program)? Or can the originals be scanned from a copy of the novel or downloaded from Tumblr? I'm not sure if the format and design of the original chart is important enough to use the kind of fair-use rationale that applies for logos. The information it displays is definitely important for the article it will be used in. Thanks for help with this complicated question. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @2ReinreB2: Information is not copyrighted but under some circumstances arrangement in a chart of even very basic information can be – by the author's creative choice of arrangement, style, color, spacing, etc. The first seems like a very basic chart that just follows alphabetical order and has no threshold of originality attached and so can just be re-drawn. The second is more iffy on that score (and I can't see any way it could be a valid subject for fair use in an article on the novel). I'd like to see other's opinions but I think it's unusable to upload or redraw in substantially the same form. That does not mean you could not places its information in some other way. But I'm also wondering if this level of in-universe detail is really necessary for (I'm guessing) the plot summary of a novel? As to the first, here you go:


 * Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Fuhgettaboutit, for your response! Your chart will also be a great addition to the page The Underland Chronicles. The main... allure? of the other form of the chart is that the code has no official name within the series; usually characters just talk about the "Tree of Transmission" -- and obviously, the chart has nothing to do with a tree. You're probably right, though: just the chart should be enough to explain the use of the code and its importance to the novels. Thanks again! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Alan Partridge image (again)
Hi again. I posted a few weeks ago about using an image for the Alan Partridge page. I'm still kind of stumped by this.

The previous image was removed for breaking copyright - the uploader (not me, I'm innocent guv!) falsely claimed it was their own work. I'd really like to get something on there, similar to how the Harry Potter, Walter White and Tony Soprano articles have images of their characters.

I'm having real trouble finding an image I can use, though. I tried to upload this low-res image from DVDtalk but I was unable to complete the upload wizard because, for example, I don't know the original author of the photo or where it was first used.

I notice the Tony Soprano page uses a low-resolution screenshot from an episode of The Sopranos - the screenshot is itself taken from an HBO site. Could I do the same thing by using a low-res screenshot from an Alan Partridge TV show or movie? Or is there some simple way I can use a promotional image of Alan Partridge by sourcing it properly? Any other ideas? Popcornduff (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Marian Rees photo
I uploaded a picture and I'm not really sure how to tell what the copyright licensing on it is. I got it from a website that said the photo was courtesy of the person that the photo was of (the photo was of Marian Rees and it said the photo was courtesy of Marian Rees). It didn't give any other information about the photo so I'm not sure how to tell if I could use it or not. I was wondering if you had any insight.

Smcmurry97 (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Because Marian Rees is still alive a freely licenced photo can be taken, so use of any non-free image will not be allowed per WP:NFCC especially as there are no better details available as to the photographer and date of publication, if any for the image you uploaded. Even if Marian Rees did provide the photo to that website, she may not be the copyright holder who is usually the photographer. ww2censor (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright for illustration
Dear Wikipedia Team.

I was wondering if I can use this image for the exhibition or it is not for the free use:

https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pir%C4%8Diupiai#/media/File:Pirciupiu_motina.jpg

Thank you, Kristina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.132.46 (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The image c:File:Pirciupiu motina.jpg is actually hosted on the WikiMedia Commons and not at the link you gave. As with their images they are freely licence so you can use them. However, you must observe the licence given by the copyright holder which in this case is an attribution licence, so you must attribute the source author and preferably with a url link to where you found the image. ww2censor (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Are the name "Alice's Restaurant" and the song by Arlo Guthrie restricted by copyright laws. My name is Alice and I want to start a monthly meal for my friends at my home and would like to bill it as "Alice's Restaurant and include the song when I email notifcations of the next menu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.239.148 (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The phrase "Alice's Restaurant" is too short to be protected by copyright but if you were intending including in your emails a substantial part of the lyrics or a sound file of a recording this would be a copyright infringement. Thincat (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Video Game Screenshot
If I were to take an in-game screenshot for League of Legends would that be copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Packerfan504 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Packerfan504: Yes, it would be. It might possibly be usable under a properly documented claim of fair use, it it met all ten of the criteria and was provided an appropriate copyright tag and fair use rationale. If you told us the intended use, we could be more specific.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)


 * @Fuhghettaboutit: Currently the League of Legends Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Legends has only 1 picture, which is woefully out of date, consisting of the old map from more than a year ago, and the old UI from more than 6 months ago. I wanted to take a screenshot with Fraps/Bandicam to update that picture to a more current one. In addition I wanted to take screenshots of the other maps too add to those sections. --Packerfan504 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If the screenshot is made *by you* of *your gameplay* then the **screenshot** is copyrighted to you as a derivative work. If it is your photo then you have the right to upload it. People around here are seriously confused about copyright when it comes to screenshots (for good reason, copyright is seriously confusing!). A screenshot of a game is covered by two copyrights. One with the content (by the game creator), and the second with the photographer (who took/published the photo). The photographer may have fair-use/derivative works protections depending on how he intends to use the photo (thereby protecting him from being sued by the original content creator). Feel free to ask any questions. BcRIPster (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)