Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2016/January

Template:Did you know nominations/ An Open Letter to Honey Singh
Please take a look at the fair use question. Thanks. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Commented.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

C-Span
Hi all, been a while since I was last on this noticeboard.

I'm wondering am I able to upload this video to Wikipedia (specifically the Julia Gillard article)?

It's of then-Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's address to a joint meeting of Congress.

Here are a couple examples of Congressional related C-Span videos:
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shame_On_You_Rush_Limbaugh.ogv
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Congress_House_Committee_Foreign_Affairs_2013_-North_Korean_Nuclear_Program_hearing_2.png

Kind regards, —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 06:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * well stuff from "U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain" (quoting the copyright page at http://www.c-span.org/about/copyrightsAndLicensing/). So I think you can copy it without restriction and upload it to commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you!
 * Kind regards, —Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 12:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian Party Changed their logo
Hey So the Libertarian Party (US) recently changed their logo. Can I upload the new logo to reflect the changes? How can I do that without breaking the copyright rules? WCLibertarian (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)WCLibertarian
 * Greetings. Sure that the logo did change? I don't see any difference between the logo on their site and our current logo.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

United States Senate Vice Presidential Bust Collection
I am working on updating United States Senate Vice Presidential Bust Collection and I have a question about the images of the busts. The images are by the US Federal Government so I know they are ok to upload in that sense, but I am unsure of the copyright of the sculptures themselves. Can I only use busts from before 1896 (work for hire copyright is 120 years after creation) or since they were created explicitly for the federal government can we use any of them? I guess this would also be a question about the presidential portrait series.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * We know that the photos themselves are in the public domain and because they are busts on display somewhere in the Senate, I presume we can consider them published no matter who the artist is or when they died. So we just have to ascertain if there are any restrictions based on the death of the artist and US copyright law because we don't know if the Senate purchased the copyright along with the commission. Without a doubt all the pre-1923 busts are PD and those pre-1978 without any copyright notices (which are not mentioned in the few source links I looked at) pre-1978 would appear to be ok too. The only ones that might be a problem would be the post-1978 ones. Anyone else? ww2censor (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree on this general accessment. It is clear that all busts were commissions requested by the Senate, meaning that these aren't a work of the US-gov, and while the photos may be of that nature, the busts themselves are not. WW2censor's categorization seems spot on - pre-1923 would all be PD with no issue, while unless one can physically check the sculpture's signature to see if it has a copyright, all other dates should be taken by default of 70 years from death of the sculpture (which fortunately the Senate pages for each list). For example, Walker Kirtland Hancock appears to have done a few of the later ones, and from seeing other sculptures he did, he did include a copyright message on the work. So I'd definitely assume that post-1923 are all copyrighted, and you can go by death of sculptor (eg if earlier than 1946) to determine if PD or not otherwise. --M ASEM  (t) 17:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * SO just to sum it up and make sure I am understanding correctly, all busts carved pre-1923 are ok to include in the article as well as any where the sculptor died pre-1946.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure that is a good summary of what we can 100% claim as free. Other images may be free but we'd need to check more details on their copyright nature including what copyright statement is made (if any) on each bust. --M ASEM (t) 23:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

CC screenshot
Another editor found this video AARP voter guide featuring, among others, Matt Bevin, Kentucky's new governor whose article presently lacks an image of him. The editor pointed out that the voter guide is uploaded under a CC license, so screenshots should inherit that permission. I made the hopefully-not-too-horrible screenshot to the right and uploaded it based on my understanding of the issues at play. I just want to make sure I have properly interpreted and executed everything before I move it to Commons and use it on the relevant articles. Any and all opinions appreciated. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that YouTube video is indeed marked as "CC with citing source" (translated from German; I dunno which specific licence that means but CC-BY is mentioned by the link), so the only reason it would not be proper to upload it without attribution (in fact, you might want to upload the whole video) would be if the account which uploaded the video is license-laundering. Has this group an official website and if so does it mention a YouTube channel?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The official site of AARP Kentucky appears to be http://states.aarp.org/region/kentucky/. If you hover over the YouTube icon under "Stay Connected" in the right-hand column, the YouTube channel appears to be AARPKY, the same account that uploaded the video voter guide. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then I'd say that the license is credible. So yes, the file should be fine to upload on Commons, referring to the video it originates from. As noted, the whole video should be OK as well.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me too but as an aside, I've seen YouTube video source that include the exact timecode of the screenshot in the url but I'm not sure how to do that. Maybe someone else can tell us how that's done to avoid having to add the timecode in prose to the description. ww2censor (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

One appends a  at the end of the URL with   being the number of seconds into the video.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, the licence should CC-by-3.0 since that is where the CC link in this page points to. De728631 (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that and changing it on Commons. I wasn't able to find the exact version of the CC-by license, so I guessed (incorrectly, it turns out). Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

PD images from online archive
I want to upload an image from an online archive website. The image is in the public domain (published image taken prior to 1 January 1955, therefore covered by the PD-Australia licence), and the archive record explicitly states that copyright has expired. However, the image is accompanied by a standard statement that the image is provided for research purposes only and must not be reproduced without prior permission from the archive manager. Can I ignore this? Warrenjs1 (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That second message may be a standard warning on the website you are looking at, and thus may not be appropriate for the specific image of interest. It might be helpful to provide a link for that. --M ASEM (t) 23:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The webpage is https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/48114?mode=full The image is a portrait of Jim Healy, an Australian trade union official, and was taken in 1938. Warrenjs1 (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * According to this Australia section you can use PD-Australia based on the 1938 date but the webpage even states that the copyright has expired which contradicts the reproduction statement. ww2censor (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

license
How i can put the license image for Personal deceased ؟Adil2015adil (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You can claim WP:fair use for a historical image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ascertaining copyright status of family photographs
I'm trying to add some images to the Hassler Whitney page. I've found some suitable images on the web here, and found out from the author of that page that the pictures were provided by Whitney's daughter. At the bottom of the page it is asserted that "The Es­say, Com­ment­ary, or Art­icle above, un­less oth­er­wise spe­cified, is li­censed un­der a Cre­at­ive Com­mons At­tri­bu­tion 3.0 Un­por­ted Li­cense.", but I don't know if that covers the photos. I've contacted Whitney's daughter and she said that the photos are a mix of passport or old family photos that she has inherited. So who has the copyright? Can I use the images if she agrees to a creative commons license? Robodile (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The photographer owns the copyright, so if it is a family member, you may be able to work out who it is. If it is a professional photographer, they likely own copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright on photographs
I find it difficult to comprehend the position on copyright. I have inherited some old family photographs (dating to c1935-1950) of a deceased person who is the subject of an article (not composed by me). I think it would enhance the article if a few were added to it. Some photographs were used by the subject as postcards and hence are autographed. It is impossible now to know who took them; some may have been taken professionally. Given that all photographs were taken by someone (and generally not the subject) it appears to me from reading the various help pages on copyright that some unknown person somewhere will own the copyright so it will never be possible to add these photos to the article. This would seem unfortunate as its general application would bar almost every old photograph from almost every article. Have I interpreted the position correctly?Exbrum (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Substantially so. If you inherited the photographs (directly or indirectly) from the subject, it may be that you (perhaps in conjunction with the subject's other heirs) may have the authority to license some or all of the images -- not because of your physical possession of the images, but on the theory that the images were created under the subject's direction and control, and the subject is the actual author (as someone who dictates a letter to a typist is the author of a letter), but you may not be able to solidly establish this. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I inherited not directly from the subject but from a relative of mine who was a close friend of the subject and to whom the subject gave or sent the photographs. So it would seem we are stumped. I had another look at the photos and one, in the form of a postcard, is attributed to "W.E. Eckenweber, Portrait Studio, Hotel General Walker, Berchtesgaden". The hotel was demolished some time ago and internet searches for the photographer only give people trying to sell old photographs taken by the firm. Does this get us any nearer? What happens if the firm holding the copyright has gone out of existence? Exbrum (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You may not like the answer but according to this webpage Eckenweber was active in 1964, so even if he died soon after that, his work will be copyright until at least 2034. ww2censor (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everyone's help. I let the matter rest. Exbrum (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I use this image?
I recently got a flyer from a company which depicts the company's logo. If I make a picture of this flyer (showing that it is indeed a flyer), is it allowed to use this photograph on Wikipedia? Emmenaar (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The flyer will almost certainly be copyrighted, unless the parts you photographed are not original enough to be copyrightable. In the former case, you probably shouldn't upload that photo (if you want to use the logo, that one should be posted as standalone not as part of a photo per WP:FREER). In the second case, you need to license your photography but otherwise it should be fine.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * While logos are usually copyright, unless they are too simple, they are normally acceptable, as non-free images, in the infobox of an article about the company or organisation itself. As such they must comply with all 10 non-free media policy guidelines ad must be just the logo itself not a full flyer. Is the logo not available from their website - you could likely use that when an article has been written. ww2censor (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The logo is on the company's website, but it says there that their logo is copyrighted. That makes it impossible to (legally) replicate, right? Emmenaar (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It can be done under Fair use - and under "not copyrightable" if it's not original enough.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could provide a link to their website so we can evaluate the logo. De728631 (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * www.wildlands.nl Emmenaar (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a very complex and creative logo, so it falls under "Non-free logo".Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Modifying Relations Locators
I take the maps from the bilateral relations pages and make new ones for the pages without them. What do I select for the copyright status? These maps are owned by Wikipedia, it looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChizzleDonkey (talk • contribs) 01:52, 8 January 2016‎
 * All the image you duplicate have a copyright licence and you should use the same licence for you modified images unless the modifications are so significant that a new licence would be acquired. There are numerous locator and country maps on the commons and simple additions and removal of text or shapes, or adding colours to countries would not confer any new copyright on you. Just use the same licence as the original. ww2censor (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Question here
Regarding if quotes required for PD content. IMO the answer is no. Wondering others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

image copyright
How to prove the own copyrighted material in wiki```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukog (talk • contribs) 11:42, 11 January 2016
 * Is there an actual question? Perhaps you need to read WP:COPYRIGHT. ww2censor (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Old wine and new bottles
1) It was common in the United States, for many years, for public domain books to be reissued in paperback editions, without any copyright notices. If the book (published before 1978) carried a new cover, and no distinct copyright notice for the cover, is it safe to conclude that the cover is public domain?

2) During the same time period, pre-1978, it was also common for paperback releases of older books to carry new cover artwork. If the book carries only the copyright for the original publication (and let's say this is, arbitrarily, at least seven years prior to the paperback appears), has the cover been published without an appropriate copyright notice, and therefore fallen into public domain?

3) In either of the above cases. does it matter if the artist is credited without any pertinent copyright notice?

I understand that "public domain" here refers only to US law, and that it's necessary to examine each book individually to assure, for example, that the copyright notice isn't in small type on the back cover. One thing I have noticed is that it wasn't unusual, when the book included a new introduction or notes, for there to be a separate, accurately dated, copyright notice for those texts. I therefore infer that the omission of a cover copyright notice was not inadvertent. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Re 1. Yes I think it is safe if as you said there are no copyright notices anywhere in the book.
 * 2. Even though the copyright is for a previous publishing edition with a different cover, I don't think it would be safe to assume that the cover may not be considered as copyrighted. But I have no authority on that opinion so it would be interesting to find out.
 * 3. I don't think the artist needs to be specifically referenced in the copyright notice.
 * What did you mean by "I therefore infer that the omission of a cover copyright notice was not inadvertent". That the publisher knew that the cover would not be considered as copyrighted? The implicit inference in the syllogism went over my head :)
 * The authority on these question is Clindberg at wikimedia commons. Contact him on his talk page at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clindberg Rybkovich (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

advertisement photo of jazz club on cover of magazine from 1964
How can I use an advertisement photo of a building front of a jazz nightclub printed on the cover of a magazine which has been out of business for 45 years? What Wikipedia copyright tags would I use to classify this photo?

The magazine is from 1964. The two owners were shown as insets in the photo but I want to digitally removed them to show only the building facade. There is no indication of a copyright mark or author on or near the photo in the ad. The two owners of the nightclub are deceased and the nightclub closed in 1972. I also searched the U.S. Copyright record books for 1964 photos of the band's name and the owners names and found no listing indicating a copyright. Thank you.
 * Prior to 1978, an advertisement in a magazine is not part of the magazine's copyright. So if there is no copyright on the advertisement then it is in the public domain. It is an advertisement because it is on the back cover? If it is an advertisement, it is in the public domain so you can alter it and then it becomes your own work. The easiest way to upload it would be through Wikimedia Commons it would take you step by step through the process, asking you where you got the original image and how you want your image to be licensed. It will add the tags automatically. I am not sure how to do it through wikipedia itself. Rybkovich (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * PS commons may not ask you where you got the original image so add that info in the comment section and if the original picture is online include a link to original image. Rybkovich (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The correct copyright tag to use for such images is: PD-US-no notice which is also available on the commons. ww2censor (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding license tag for image on wikipage "Lavdrim Muhaxheri" (english version)
Hi, I've added an image Lavdrim_wiki.jpeg to the Wiki - page Lavdrim Muhaxheri with the upload - wizard. I added the image on 12 December 2015, then someone removed it on 16 December with motivation "No license since 16 December 2015". I undid this removal since there was no information about that the image would be/ or should be removed by 16 December 2015 on the wizard -page. I added the image through the upload - wizard again on 3 January 2016 with the upload - wizard and added the license tag "PD-ineligible". It would be appreciated if someone could check that/if I've added the correct license tag. Regards, KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC).
 * Greetings, added a link to the page. Unfortunately, photographs are not PD-ineligible because courts have found that there is a degree of originality/creativity inherent to photography. Thus, you need a photography which is licensed - a copyright license - that satisfies the requirements on this page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tag for the article. It is inappropriate in articles is only used for file pages but this one clearly does not qualify as Jo-Jo Eumerus says. Anyway the image c:File:Lavdrim wiki.jpeg has already been tagged for deletion on the commons where it is hosted. ww2censor (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've found the license - tag to use for the video wherefrom the image/screenshots was but then it says on the Commons tag - page that screenshots will be removed. Is there a license-tag for screenshots from license - tagged videos? KewinRozz 19:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The image was deleted twice on the commons because you never provided a proper licence for it. You should really address the issue there by making contact with one of the deleting admins and point them to the webpage where the licence shows that the image is freely licenced and they will likely undelete the image adding the licence. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll ask the question to the admin on Commons, thanks. KewinRozz 19:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Special images of dead persons
As far as I understand, current Fair use policy precludes use of a (possibly) copirighted photograph of a dead person if there are public domain images of that person. But what if these free images may be considered to poorly represent the appearance of the person in question that potentially can lead to misinformation of a reader? May it be a case for the Fair use? Эйхер (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Would like someone to look into this.
I have a dispute over a supposed copyright claim. File:Camp_Joe_Holt.jpg See my Talk section for details and comments. It's a bit complicated so I'll accept whatever decision is made. JeffersonClark (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When an account name ends in "bot", it's an automated program that performs certain tasks; in this case to tag images missing required information. So there's no one to dispute there, it's just a robot. If the actual author of the image is truly lost to history, you could possibly cite that as "Author unknown", but you'd still need to find out and cite where it was published. If you can indeed substantiate that it was published in the 1860s, that should be enough to support a claim of being public domain due to age. But for verification purposes, that information does need to be on the image description page. You've still got a week to add it before the file will be deleted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I realize that it was an auto function. My problem is that there are at least two sources (not including the copy that I have). They are two different scans of the same photo. Neither gives an actual source or date.

http://cdm16066.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16066coll24/id/1504
 * Copyright: 	The Jeffersonville Township Public Library provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes and makes no warranty
 * with regard to their use for other purposes. The written permission of the copyright owners and/or holders of other rights such as publicity and/or privacy
 * rights is required for distribution, reproduction, and other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions.
 * Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item and securing any necessary permissions ultimately rests with persons desiring to use the item.

& (here's the problem) http://images.indianahistory.org/cdm/ref/collection/dc008/id/634
 * Owning Institution: Indiana Historical Society
 * Date Circa 1866
 * Copyright Notice Digital Image © 2009 Indiana Historical Society. All Rights Reserved.

""I don't know where I acquired the copy that I have. It's been in my files for at least 15 years. I've done image searches but can only find the two listed above. JeffersonClark (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We've got a clear date of "circa 1866", so I think that's sufficient. I can see what I can find too. (It's an interesting image, I'd hate to get rid of it!) As to the copyright claim, I imagine the historical society puts that on everything, but it's not valid. Bridgeman v. Corel clearly ruled that you can't claim copyright on a faithful reproduction of a public domain two-dimensional work, like a scan or photograph of it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The US law for unpublished works is generally 120 years from creation which clearly is and easily within the noted date of closure of the camp c1866. This source page notes its digital date as 2014, so it is unlikely to have been put online before then, i.e., published, before 2003, so PD-US-unpublished should be used but upload it to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade Thank you, I really appreciate it. (yeah ... same here) Now ... should I let the bot delete it and upload it again with another copyright tag? If so, how should I tag the new upload? Where did this image come from? Who created it? Who holds the copyright to this image? I'll use the "circa 1866" date and I'll use the Jeff. Library as a source. Looking at my original file, before I cleaned it up, that's probably where it came from. It was a photo of a photo from a webshots.com site that no longer exists. But I don't have a clue as to the creator or copyright. JeffersonClark (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @Ww2censor Thanks. My "original" had to be before 2000 when I posted it to my website. http://home.insightbb.com/~sintax202/holt.html but that shouldn't matter. I'll use the PD-US-unpublished tag then. Think I'll still wait 'till the first one is deleted and post fresh in the commons. (maybe clean it up a bit more) JeffersonClark (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no need to allow the file be deleted, just edit the existing file details with a fully completed information template (click on the link to see how to use it) and then tag it with move to commons once it all looks fine with the appropriate copyright licence as mentioned above. You can always upload a new cleaned up version at any time. I've edited some of it for you already, so just complete it. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. This has worked out better than I'd hoped. Since I wasn't under the file size constraints that I was when I made the first image, I was able to use a larger size and colorize it to match the original. There is now a copy in the Commons and linked to Wikipedia. Thanks again. JeffersonClark

I have always believed that historic materials should be available to all. (unlike many historic groups, universities, libraries and other institutions) Glad I could finally get this out there. JeffersonClark (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks much! If you have any other items in your collection you'd be interested in scanning/photographing and uploading, that'd be much appreciated as well. Hopefully would be a little easier now that you're familiar with the process. Sorry that it is so cumbersome, but as you might imagine, we have people who grab copyrighted images off the Internet or what have you and try to claim them as "own work" or "public domain", so we have to make sure. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

copyright tag
HI There,

I have received the following message and I have a hard time figuring out what needs to be done (1.which tag is applicable and 2. how to add the appropriate tag). Could you please help me out? I do have the copyright of this picture and it is a photo of a public figure being uploaded with his own consent, for which I can verify.

Thanks!

---

Thanks for uploading File:Reza Moridi -offcial LR.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AIVIIR (talk • contribs)
 * What photographer took File:Reza Moridi -offcial LR.jpg, and what permission did he/she give to use the photo? —teb728 t c 08:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The photo seems to be copied from http://rezamoridi.onmpp.ca/Biography, which has the copyright notice "Copyright © 2015 Liberal Caucus Service Bureau." —teb728 t c 08:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Peabody Award
czar 17:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * File:George Foster Peabody Awards.jpg is tagged as a currency, but it's an award—is that right?
 * 1) When does this medal exit copyright in the U.S.?
 * 2) If it's still in copyright, there are a number of images to crop in commons:Category:Peabody Award

Comment
File:Ji Gongquan and Family (Left Ji Qing, Center Chaoli, Right Chaozhu).jpg is from [], which I have tagged " photographs taken in China over 50 years ago, " but I don't see how to indicate that the photographer is not known. The photo is of people born before 1930, so the photo was taken more than 50 years ago.

What to do? Apologies if I have messed up! ch (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That's simple - I've just added unknown. Fill in the description and any other details you deem relevant to the information template I already added. Also add some categories to the image. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Guinea Worm prevention flyer
At the AMNH in New York, there's a section on the guinea worm -- I got a picture of a small flyer made by Hydro Polymers (http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/2001/October/erOct.22/10_22_01cartercenter.html) -- there's no copyright notice or anything, but I assume it's quasi recent. Would it possibly be fair use to put it in? How should I classify it for use in the Guinea Worm article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editosaurus (talk • contribs) 01:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey mate. I don't think the flyer would meet Wikipedia's fair-use guideline (it's close to a specific example of what wouldn't constitute fair use, see WP:NFC point 15). The flyer would probably be under copyright, especially if it's published after 1978. Seattle (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright tag
Hi, I uploaded this file today. I talked to the person who digitized this photo. He told me that I was free to upload it, but that I could give credit to the Modern Assyrian Research Archive. Is there any suitable tag? Shmayo (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You can use template, and add the Modern Assyrian Research Archive credit to the source field in the information template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Digital pictures of Paintings
I am creating a page for an artist. He died in 1984 and his paintings are distributed to many owners. I and my sister have taken digital pictures of many of the paintings with the verbal approval of the owners. There is no declaration of copyright on any of the works

Can I display these digital pictures on the page for this artist?

If I display these pictures of the paintings on the page, can I declare copyright on them?

Thank you, Blaise A. DarveauxBdarveaux (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdarveaux (talk • contribs) 03:54, 23 January 2016‎


 * Hello Blaise. A contemporary artist (or their heirs) own copyright to their work, even if the painting has been sold to other people, unless the copyright has been explicitly released in writing. Declaration of copyright is not required. Contemporary paintings are copyrighted simply by existing, although the length of the copyright depends on when the painting was created, displayed and published. You do not obtain copyright to a painting simply by photographing it. You may be able to use such an image under our policy allowing limited use of non free images, in the context of critical commentary about the artist's work. Please read WP:NFCI #7 for details. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Blaise, if you have permission from the copyright holder, you can upload the images through wikimedia commons and then use them here. For instructions see here - Open Source Ticket Request System. After you email the permission uploading the file through commons will be pretty easy. Rybkovich (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @ Rybkovich, the questioner stated that the artist died in 1984, so depending on the country, etc., the paintings will likely remain in copyright for a minimum of 70 years pma, which will be at least 2055 so a commons upload is not allowed. The possibility will be as Cullen328 states for use as critical commentary of the artists style but only if its use complies with all 10 of our non-free policy criteria. The only other possibility would be if the heirs release the paintings under a free licence. ww2censor (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct by owners I miss read owners to be copyright owner's family. It is very clear above. Rybkovich (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your advise. Yes, by owners I meant the people that actually owned the physical paintings hanging on the walls. Some of the owners are relatives of the artist that were given the paintings as presents. Some owners are the children of the artist's wife who inherited the paintings when he died. Some owners are non-family members who purchased the paintings either from the artist's studio or who commissioned him to do the work.


 * I actually only wanted to show 1 or 2 of his paintings as examples. They are mostly of landscapes which I already explain in the text. I just have to think hard about No. 8 of the "use of non-free policy" and if the inclusions of the images are adding to the descriptions already given.Bdarveaux (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright for a picture of a person
Hi I uploaded a picture of Avishai Henik to his article. I just editted his article and gave me a permission to use this picture online I did not find the right category for tagging it what license should I use? Its a free use picture.


 * Please note that we need a free licence for File:AvishaiHenik.jpg from the original photographer. Mr Henik as the subject of the photo is most likely not the copyright holder, and permissions for using images on Wikipedia only are not sufficient. Images of living people on Wikipedia must be freely re-useable by anyone for any purpose. So please ask Mr Henik who took this photo and try to obtain a free licence like Creative Commons-by-attribution-4.0 or similar from the photographer. After that, the photographer should send an email as outlined in Declaration of consent for all enquiries so the permission can be verified. De728631 (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0)
Can we use CC BY ND 2.0 at Wikipedia, or does this require 3.0? The 2.0 reads "...copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially" https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/ Thanks. Image in question https://www.flickr.com/photos/americanprogress/3465791885 prokaryotes (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't use any "ND" licensed stuff here except as Non-free content or if it's multilicensed with at least one derivative permitting license.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But none free would not work in this instance, right? prokaryotes (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Non-free wouldn't work here either; it's an image of a living person, so it's replaceable with a free image that a Wikipedian or someone willing to freely license his stuff could create at any time. WP:NFCC violation, as it is.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. Can you tag this file for speedy deletion? Or post here the tag, i tried the deletion request but find it very confusing. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Requested speedy deletion on Commons.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Images of Interpol wanted persons
I wonder if images depicting wanted persons by Interpol would constitute fair use? For example, this person, who is wanted by the "Judicial authorities of UNMIK". At the bottom of the page, it says "This extract of the Red Notice has been approved for public dissemination". One photograph is needed for Lavdrim Muhaxheri, a leader of the Islamic State.--Z oupan 20:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Normally, for living persons we expect that a free image can be taken so we would normally not allow for non-free images to be used under WP:NFCC. However, with people that are notable (like here) and are known to be on the run from the law and thus likely not to be easily seen in a public space (again, like here), we do allow non-frees to be used in this manner. --M ASEM (t) 21:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct attribution for CC-BY and other free content
I have a question about the use of freely licensed images for navigational purposes, and whether displaying them without linking to their image description page is kosher. Can any of the experts here please provide some input to my question on the village pump? Thank you, —Kusma (t·c) 10:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Can someone post a picture they took of me without my permission?
A user is repeatedly posting a photo they took of me in my home without my permission on the Wikipedia article for Facial expression. This is the. Thanks.

128.237.212.233 (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've posted a request to the article talk page not to re-add this until this is settled. On a side note, you will likely need to prove that you are who you claim to be - I'm not sure how you'd go about doing this. I'm not familiar with copyright and legality with photographs, but I know that things are slightly different when pictures are taken in private areas like houses, since there's a reasonable expectation of privacy - especially if you asked them not to take a picture. On a side note, this does look like it was probably done as a form of harassment, given the title and some of the user's edits like this one. I'll drop a note at WC, since it's hosted there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also posted at Wikimedia Commons, so you will want to check in there as well to see their advice. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Image is also tagged as speedy now - we edited concurrently on the same issue :). The relevant Commons information is Commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, and the image is easily replaceable with a less dubious photo. GermanJoe (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

✅ - Image has been deleted on Commons. GermanJoe (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.172.133 (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Appropriate tag for image
What tag do we use for images that are taken by the person himself (on whom the wikipedia page is about) and are not copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilanir0122 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * PD-self, generally, if they have relinquished copyright to their photo. Take note that an image of someone is seldom created by that someone unless it's a selfie, so be careful about the identity of the photographer - they own the copyright, not the subject of the photography.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Question about copyright status of a promotional image used for an article.
Hey folks, I'm new user and I wanted to add a picture to the infobox of the page about a person(Matsuko Deluxe), but I'm not sure if that picture is suitable.

This shows the name "Kyodo" when clicking on the picture to the right, and I assume that's the copyright holder right? But when opening the picture itself, it doesn't say anything. The image itself is from a public promotion event for her collaboration with Mister Donut. I'm completely lost with this. Is this picture usable? Should I try to mail the editor of that article, to determine the copyright status? Thanks!
 * It is almost certainly covered by copyright, and if the status is unclear, we take the conservation position and assume so. To use this image, we would need explicit permission from the copyright holder. See Requesting copyright permission-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Upload of logo
Previously I uploaded a logo to Commons with incorrect permission tagging and it has now been deleted. I have been advised that it might be possible to upload it to Wikipedia under Template:Logo rationale, but not on Commons. The logo can be found here. Please can someone familiar with the template tell me if uploading the logo for the purpose of illustrating an article falls under fair use. Thanks —RedScrees (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like already took care of that article.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, question closed. :) —RedScrees (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi - Techinically Logos can uploaded here if they're "fancy", But If they're just normal writing and letters with no fancy crap then they can usually be uploaded to Commons (Regardless of it being "fancy" or not I upload all logos here instead of Commons anyway as they're hopeless with everything!), I saw your edit summary and figured I'd simply reupload it here instead :), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 23:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)