Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2016/July

IHS emblem of the Jesuits - the Society of Jesus
I am trying to determine whether or not this "IHS emblem of the Jesuits" is copyrighted (see here: File:Ihs-logo.svg). I have been conducting searches on the web and am unable to determine if it is public domain, some sort of free media, or if it is copyrighted. Just because the downloader of this symbol claims public domain and that it is their "own work" doesn't mean that it is. If this is copyrighted then its permitted use on Wikipedia is very limited, rather than the current number of English Wikipedia articles into which this symbol has been placed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . I was able to find a variation of the logo used on the Society of Jesus's official website as far back as June 2002 so this looks likely to be not the "own work" of the uploader to me. No source for the image was provided and it was uploaded in 2008 by an editor who no longer seems to be active and only made a few edits overall, so not sure where the image actually came from. You could tag the file for speedy deletion using c:Template:Logo or c:Template:No permission since, or start a deletion request for the file via c:COM:DR, but it might be a good idea to ask for opinions at c:COM:VP/C first. Since the file was uploaded to Commons, I'm not sure what we can do about it on English Wikipedia other than removing it one by one from the articles, etc. where it is currently being used, which seems to be in the hundreds. Such a mass removal, however, might be seen as disruptive by some if no attempt is made to discuss this on the various article talk pages first, especially if the file still can be found on Commons. One thing to consider is the age of the logo; it may not be simple enough to qualify for c:Template:Textlogo, but it may be old enough to qualify for some other type of public domain license depending upon it's country of origin. For example, File:Jesuit's Great Seal With The Monogram Of Jesus.jpg is c:Template:PD-US while File:IHS Rom 1650.jpg is c:Template:PD-Old. Lots of files are uploaded to Commons as "own work" by mistake, but they still may qualify for public domain for some other reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello! Here's the altar of the Church of Gesu in Rome... opened around 1584. Obviously this is one of the sources for hte image or could be considered a source. Now, newbie question: is the copyright dicussion above around about who made and holds the copyright on the digital file, rather than the content of the image? It seems like there is nothing original (i.e. "new work") to put a copyright on in terms of this image, as the original design has existed for several centuries at least. 06:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure this can be considered a source for the logo in question. The image to which you are referring is a sculpture or a statue that includes angels and other beings. At the moment I am having difficulty considering this a registered trademark, which is what a logo is. Also, this is different from the logo in some details. For example, this does not have the three arrows in the logo - which I forget what those represent. Additionally, when challenged, public domain must be proved for a logo wp:logo, such as the one we are discussing. I think we should leave out of the discussion - the image to which you have linked. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction - apparently a logo can be protected under "trademark" protection. It is not a "trademark". It seems that one key to trademark protection is its continued use: . --- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Gesu monogram suggests but doesn't prove that the design of this emblem may be too old to be under copyright. One should probably ask around if people have seen the emblem elsewhere already.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I did some more poking around and the basics of the image (circle, the IHS etc) are about a thousand or more years old.
 * Here's a source that says it was first used in the 4th century.
 * Here is a Google scan of a 1571 folio with pretty much the same image.
 * Here's an example that seems to have been scanned from an old book.
 * Numerous 17th C examples, from woodcut-printed books. This one from 1624 looks familiar...
 * Here's another example of the basically identical logo on two porcelain vases (1860-70).
 * Carved in stone in the side of a Jesuit residence in Edinburgh.
 * Finally, [here's a Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_maiorem_Dei_gloriam] on the Jesuits that says the monogram was adopted in 1541.

Regarding the image in question, it does not contain any "original" work and thus can't be eligible for copyright. It's not new, as evidenced by the many many examples that are easily found. On the other hand, there do seem to be some Jesuit trademarks (example) that incorporate aspects of the older image we are talking about. But those are new, derivative works that incorporate originality in some way. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As I posted above, I'm not sure what we at Wikipedia can do about a Commons file. The file is not only used on English Wikipedia, but also on many other Wikipedia's as well. All we can try and do is assess whether its usage complies with WP:IUP on English Wikipedia. So, questions about the copyright status of the file probably need to be resolved at Commons. If such a discussion results in the deletion of the file from Commons, then it can be re-uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content or under some free license such as PD-USonly. If non-free, its use will have to comply with not only IUP, but also WP:NFCC. If freely licensed, then it will not be subject to the restrictions of the NFCC, but still will be subject to the IUP.
 * It looks this discussion is related to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, but that is more of a content-related dispute than a copyright-related dispute. Outside of copyright/non-free concerns and obvious vandalism, images are basically like text in that their use in a particular article not only needs to satisfy the IUP, but there there has to be a consensus to use the image in the article. So, if a image is added to an article by an editor, it can simply be removed by another editor who feels it is not needed. When that happens, the editor wishing to use the image should try an establish a consensus for doing so on the article's talk page. Likewise, if an image is removed from an article by one editor and then re-added by another, the editor wishing to remove the image should try and establish a consensus for doing so on the article's talk page. Content disputes are supposed to be resolved per WP:DR and if the various steps listed there have been followed and there are still some who do not agree with whatever consensus was established, then it might be time to discuss things at ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Marchjuly, the COIN discussion is about the improper use of the Jesuit monogram in the infoboxes of "Jesuit articles". It's about a policy violation of WP:LOGO, not about inline images in articles. Happy editing! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Wish to upload an image and retain copyright
Greetings- I am working on a new Wikipedia page and wish to use an image that is copyrighted by a museum. I will be able to obtain use of the image by the copyright holder but if possible I would like to have the image remain copyrighted, i.e., not in public domain. Can that be done or does uploading always result in a public domain tag?

Thanks Gene McCullough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene McCullough (talk • contribs) 04:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Greetings. It is possible to tag images with free licenses (such as CC-BY) which are acceptable here but not public domain. Of course, you'll need to convince the museum to license the photo under such a license first, and offer evidence (say by an email to WP:OTRS from the museum's email address) that the license applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Why not provide us with a link, if the image is online, because some orgnaisations improperly claim copyright over images that are actually freely licensed? ww2censor (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

public domain vs some restrictions?
Hi, I up loaded one photo in two forms. I am torn between tagging them in the public domain or making them available for all but commercial uses. Can you tell me:

1) How to tag a photo as in the public domain?

2) How to tag photo as available for any non commercial use?

3) Is there any down side if I decide to prohibit commercial use?

Thank you.

jhauben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauben (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The first question is: Are you the photographer? If so, you can licence the image as PD-self. The downside of a commercial restriction is that we don't accept images with such restrictions. Instead you could use a free licence such as one of the Creative Commons licences found at WP:ICT/FL. ww2censor (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Uploading a picture from family album - which license to use?
Hןת I would like to upload a picture but unsure as to which license to use. The picture was taken over 90 years ago by an unknown private photographer and is taken from my family album. I already uploaded this picture to the Hebrew.wiki under the "fair use" license because I was told by their help-desk that a specific license for a private picture exist only in the English wiki. Now, when I searched for an appropriate license, I only found "a historically significant fair use image", but it didn't seem right to me in this case. As I "own" this picture myself, I don't see why I can't upload it to Commons. So my question is - can I upload to Commons and which license should I use? Kiki (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Greetings, . The problem with such a family album picture is that it is frequently an unpublished image whose copyright is held by the heirs of the photographer. Further, for Commons it would have to be PD in the country of origin as well. Do you know which country it was created in? Whether it was already published elsewhere? When the photographer died?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Greetings Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the prompt reply. The picture was taken in Germany around 1925 and was a plain portrait photo made privately. It was never published anywhere and was always in possession of the "subject's" family. If you still don't think that I can upload it to Commons, than which license should I use to upload it to Wikipedia? Kiki (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can assume that such an image is free without knowing about the photograper, also because publication rights and URAA are an issue.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably still in copyright in the US (but not in Germany). If the photo is of someone who has died then it can be used in an article specifically about the person (but only in such an article). That type of "fair use" is allowed on English Wikipedia. "Upload file", "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use", "This is an historic portrait of a person no longer alive". Don't worry about whether you think the photo is historic. Thincat (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Logo Question
Hello. I am creating a draft (see the very incomplete draft at Draft:Odyssey (website)). I wish to use the company's logo. How do I go about obtaining permission to use the logo? The website of the company is here. Note that I've declared a COI on the draft's talk page and my user page, but I am not editing on behalf of the company, nor am I getting paid to create the page, which means I did not have to declare a paid editing disclosure. It should also be noted that a page about the company was previously speedy deleted for unambiguous advertising. I was the one that tagged it for speedy deletion. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC) EDIT: It should also be known that the website used to have a "branding kit" available until a recent site redesign. The branding kit is still available via the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine by going here, scrolling donw, and clicking "Download Odyssey Branding Kit." The kit included versions of their current logo. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That kind of logo is usually handled as a non-free logo, see Non-free logo and WP:NFCC. Now, if you are an employee of the company as you say you may be able to secure a free license for the logo, see WP:CONSENT for the procedure.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Until an article has moved from draft form into mainspace you cannot use non-free images, so don't upload the logo until then unless it is freely licensed by the copyright holder. As an aside, I see the article has not been developed yet but in a quick internet search I do not find any published reliable third party sources that confirm the notability of this company, so there is a risk it might get deleted again, but good luck. ww2censor (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. Unfortunately, the way employment works with the the company is rather unique, so I don't believe WP:CONSENT applies.  As for notable sources, I am sourcing both the company's about page (for facts such as how many employees) and reliable sources linked on their about page, located here.  (The typo in the link has been fixed.) -- Gestrid (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a minor typo in the link above. It should be http://about.theodysseyonline.com/ Thincat (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

bot email
Received a "bot" email regarding File:PT and Maria at Spring Fling3.jpg Photo was taken by Rashun Photography which Serving the Peace LLC, entertainment management contracts as photographer. He used my cell phone and the source of the photo is from the cell phone downloaded. It is not on Rashun Photography, PT the Gospel Spitter gallery on the Focus Minded Photos website as the other photos on the article page.

Not sure what you want. We wrote the source is android phone. Hamilton ford (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamilton ford (talk • contribs) 14:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Generally the photographer is the copyright holder unless his contract transfers the copyright to the commissioning organisation or person. Whose camera is used is of no consequence because, as you stated, you, as the owner of the camera did not take the photo. It really quite a simple process but what we really need is for the copyright holder, who is most likely Rashun Photography, to verify their permission to release the image under a free licence by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. The source is Rashun Photography, even if it is not on their website, and not your android phone, which just happens to be the recording device. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Mojo4212 question
How do I provide a copyright tag to a photo I uploaded and does not appear on the Wikipedia front page of my career? I also loaded another version of the same photo that I seem to have delete before I can load up a new one with the tag, so I would need to know how to do that. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojo4212 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Eh?
I've had from ImageTaggingBot and have no idea what I'm meant to do. I don't know what a tag is or which one I'm meant to put on it. Help would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The file you uploaded lacks copyright tags. These need to be in template form or else the bot will mark them as "no license".Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you want Template:Non-free biog-pic for that file, as well as a non-free use rationale.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jo-Jo! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Using a Commons image
For an article on Claude Perier, under construction, I wish to use the File Chateau_de_Vizille_-_jpg.jpeg, now up on the site. The file is from Wikimedia Commons, created by Thomas Bigot, and is under "Creative Commons Attribution -Share-Alike License". I simply can't figure out how to post this information. Please allow the addition of the image. Richard J Barker (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's on Commons you don't need to upload it here at all. Just link to the Commons file like you would link to a Wikipedia file, as if it were on Wikipedia.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Uploading an image from a book with copyright
Good afternoon,

I've selected an image from a book with all the rights reserved to be uploaded as part of an article of a dead artist. I know the name of the photographer and I have the date the picture was taken as well of the information of the press that printed the book. Do I need anything else to upload the image?

Thank you for your information,

David Anaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davinaya (talk • contribs) 20:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When you upload you will need to add a WP:Fair use rationale. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This image details
Good Morning Sir This journal have the copyright of this image watch page number 44 http://ermt.net/docs/papers/Volume_4/10_October2015/V4N10-103.pdf

One e book is going to publish from bengluru publication name is verse publilation named is khalid saleem dar - Biograpgy Plese keep my father[Mr Khalid Saleem dar] wikipedia as it is as sonn as possible I will also send you the link of biography also — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.243.110.73 (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

18th century portrait
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Veichtner_Portrait.jpg

I would like to use the above portrait on the page of Franz Adam Veichtner, however I have received a notice saying that it might not be suitable. The portrait is from the Archiv der Carl-Schirren-Gesellschaft, Lüneburg. It has also been used on the Latvian page for Veichtner; https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_%C4%80dams_Feihtners. Although there is no information available about the portrait, it was made during his lifetime (he died 1822), so I don't think there should be a problem with copyright. Can anyone offer some advice?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twil1991 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with the image copyright - it is in the public domain if, as you state, it was created in 1822 or before. The note you got on your talk page was telling you that the image did not have a copyright tag on it which stated that it was in the public domain. I've added such a tag diff and all should be good now. In short, when you upload an image to wikipedia or the wikimedia commons, you need to add a copyright / licence tag which specifies under what terms the image can be used. Images without such tags are marked, users warned, and the image may be deleted. File copyright tags provides some more information. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twil1991 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Understanding the scope of the GNU Affero General Public License
A new editor has recently begun to insert a variety of images derived from public datasets using software provided by Data USA. (Contribution history.) Examples can be found here -, , and. Data USA hit with a splash just a little while ago - I found this NYT article for example - and it looks like a great resource, but I'm not confident that the images are being properly used here and I'm hoping for a little enlightenment. The website's Terms of Use are found here - http://datausa.io/about/usage/. The TOS say, on the one hand, that "All of the content on the site is presented under a GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 (GPLv3)", which seems pretty broad; but the very next paragraph, captioned "WHAT CAN YOU DO WITH DATA USA CONTENT (DATA, TEXT AND VISUALIZATIONS)?" recites, "You can copy, download or print content for your own use, and you can also include excerpts from Data USA, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of Data USA as source is given."

I'm struggling to reconcile the broad AGPL license with what looks like a simple "personal use" exception ("your own use"; "your own documents, presentations", etc.) for images etc. derived using the (quite freely licensed) software. If the GNU license covers source, data & output then the (comparatively) narrow permitted use of output set forth in the TOS does not seem justified or indeed permissible. But if these image restrictions are permissible, then use in Wikipedia does not seem to fall within them. Is the GNU license is narrower somehow - e.g., covering the open source software, and the public data sets; but not the output directly rendered from the Data USA website? I don't spend a ton of time comparing and contrasting the various flavors of available licenses out there and am hoping that someone who has a bit more facility with these things can enlighten me a bit. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as if they are additional rights granted. It makes no mention that commercial use is prohibited. So you should be able to purely make use of the AGPL license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. But that's precisely what makes no sense (at least to me)!  If the AGPL is broad enough to cover commercial use of the output (i.e. it's not expressly prohibited, therefore it's allowed) then surely it also already covers the lesser personal, non-commercial use too; and if that is the case then additional language is superfluous.  There's no reason to grant any extra rights if they're already part of the package.  This is what makes me think that the AGPL covers the code, but not the output.  JohnInDC (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like this discussion ought to be held on Commons, in any case, given that the material is hosted there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion! Do you know of a particular page?  JohnInDC (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * COM:VPC. Thincat (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A word for the particular use-case cited initially: I'm familiar with the owners of the company, Datawheel, that produced this media. Despite being fairly confident (knowing the driving philosophy of the company's work), I reached out directly to the company's email for clarification. After John pointed out the specifics of GNU_Affero_General_Public_License I agree the language is vague in both the GPLv3 as well as the company's site as it pertains to personal use on public domains such as wikipedia. To add to the confusion, it seems this license is usually used to cover software (not necessarily the product of software). I received a reply from Datawheel confirming my initial interpretation and confirming that permission and allowance for such media is within the license scope (at least in this case). I'm still a very green contributor so please let me know if I've missed anything else. Thanks all! Mattrdini (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's helpful, thanks. Best that the company change its website to reflect its actual intention with regard to republication, because as it now stands they seem to be prohibiting what they say is okay!  JohnInDC (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Dubious image licensing
Hi there. I'm currently GA-reviewing Russian gay propaganda law, which includes several images, all of which claim to be the uploaders' own work. Given the type of images they are—close ups of public officials, athletes, etc.—this seems dubious to me. Also, at least 2 of them claim to be crops of larger images, but have no attribution to the original. Could someone with media licensing experience be able to take a look at these and determine if the claims are legit, or at least good enough not to hold up GA promotion? Thanks! Jujutsuan ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 20:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Image
You sent me a message asking me to use the correct formal of uploading an image but I didn't really get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalnafia (talk • contribs) 23:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So the problem is,, the image page does not say what sort of licence the image should be available under. Can you tell us anything about the image - who took the photo? You? Someone else? And we'll take it from there. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Or, looked at another way, is it your intent to place the photo in the public domain, or to make it available under a creative commons share-alike licence? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It's my cousin who took it, if there is any wrongdoing by my photo then please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalnafia (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's all okay, . Please don't worry. It's like this. Someone owns the copyright of the photo - your cousin. They need to say how they wish other people - including wikipedia - to be able to use the photograph. It is normally a choice of "putting it in the public domain", meaning anyone can use it for any purpose without restriction. Or else placing it under a licence - and wikipedia tends to use a Creative Commons licence - which means anyone can use it as long as they allow others to use it under the same terms. If you are unfamiliar with all of this, it may seem a little scary. If I can advise: I suggest placing it under the creative commons licence. If you agree (presumably on your cousin's behalf), then I can tag the image and we'll all be happy. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it inappropriate to upload a photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalnafia (talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It is very appropriate. It's just that we worry about copyright. See my answer, above. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright Question
Hi,

I just uploaded a photo from an archives, under what I believe is a CC BY-NC license. However, due to the rather complicated-looking Terms of Use page on the archives' website, I just wanted to consult here before posting the image to an article I wrote. (I sent the archive an email, but haven't received a response). One concern I had was that the watermark, which is copyrighted under non-CC terms, could render the image as non-CC BY-NC.

I listed the image as being under an unknown copyright, which I would change to CC BY-NC upon confirmation. All links to copyright information about the image are on the following page: File:W.J._Bush_%26_Co_Distillery_Explosion,_Merton_1933.jpg

Thank you kindly, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, except in rare cases, we do not accept images with non-commercial or non-derivative restrictions. Currently it is not used in any articles so we can't even tell you if it might pass our restrictive non-free policy guidelines. I presume the image is by this Keystone View Company that existed doing photography until 1963, so I doubt the image is old enough to have fallen into the public domain. However, you might use it as a non-free historic image if it complies with WP:NFCC once an article exits where it is used. ww2censor (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification! I just re-posted a new description under a Fair Use application, with a long and very detailed description on the transformative context of the image on Wikipedia. I look forward to seeing if the explanation I have provided meets the rigorous criteria for Fair Use. If not, then no problem! I've learned a great deal about copyright today :) File:Essential_Oils_Distillery_Explosion,_Mitcham_March_30,_1933.jpg Sturgeontransformer (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's preferable to use a template for your rationals such as Non-free use rationale because all the required component fields are preset for you. The main problem now is that you have already uploaded a non-free image that is not being used in an article: use in mainspace is one of the 10 required criteria for the use of a non-free image. Does an article exist or has it not yet been written, or is it a draft? ww2censor (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Sincere apologies for any issues caused by not uploading this image in accordance with best practices. I have since added a template to the image, and have uploaded it to the article with a carefully written caption. Thank you kindly for your patience; I will avoid making such mistakes in future. Best, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Image
this photo was taken by my cousin using my own phone. If there is anything further thing that you wish to fix without my permission, then please do so. If not, then I would love to see the link which directs me into fixing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalnafia (talk • contribs) 14:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Just email this link to your cousin and ask them to fill in the template (within the black border). Then have them Email it to WC, then upload image  to W.C. using  . This will attribute a Creative Commons licence to it that User:Tagishsimon advises and which we require for these types of images. All WMF projects can then use this image. May sound complex the first time around but just follow the instructions. It is the best way. You may then need help in inserting it into an article but we can help you with that. First, have your  cousin fill in the the OTRS (within the black border) and email it to us (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org), to clear up the the copyright issue. This is the first step. --Aspro (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Knowing the exact number of edits
I think my subject was pretty clear of what I am trying to ask. I have seen your Stats and saw the number of edits you have already made but I know how to do it but how can I know how many edits have I done so far?Aalnafia (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically that's not a question for this venue, but a number is show on Special:Preferences.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I want to upload the Queen's Award logo
Hello. I want to upload a logo for Queen's Award for Voluntary Service just like Queen's Queen's Awards for Enterprise.

Is it okay to upload with the same description like the one for ?

This is the image. Rushingthru (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Are the images uploaded on 'U Mumba', Puneri Paltan, Bengaluru_Bulls,Patna_Pirates,Bengal_Warriors
Hello,

I would like to question if the images uploaded on the articles 'U Mumba', Puneri Paltan , Bengaluru_Bulls, Patna_Pirates and Bengal_Warriors are non-free images?

have these image uploaders had copyright for the same? please help LovSLif 10:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LovSLif (talk • contribs)
 * Greetings, . Added some links so that we know the articles. All files in question are non-free, and the uploaders most likely don't hold the copyright.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Keeping a Google search screenshot to illustrate a point in a talk page
As part of an ongoing debate about the page title of New York, yesterday I created and uploaded a screenshot of Google search results for "New York". I provided a detailed fair use rationale in the Licensing section of the image page. Today a bot that the image would be deleted after 7 days because it is not used in any article. This image is only relevant in the Talk space debate and there would be no point using it in article space. How is this not fair use? I have read WP:NFCCP and would find it justified to allow exemptions for irreplaceable non-free images in Talk space, provided they are supported by a clear fair-use rationale. — JFG talk 17:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * the issue here is that using the image on an article talk page makes the image fail WP:NFCCP "Non-free content in only allowed in articles" and the exceptions clause WP:NFEXMP doesn't allow for use on talk pages. I'd suggest you use the exact url you used to generate your query on Google as a link in the discussion so others can replicate the result for themselves. Nthep (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer, yes I see how the policy does not allow this, but I fail to see how limited use of a picture in a talk page is not acceptable while limited use of the same picture in an article page is. Talk pages have a very limited audience compared to article pages, so it would seem to me that fair use would be more justified. I looked for clues to understanding this policy choice in WP:Non-free content and didn't see this point mentioned. Is the origin of this rationale explained somewhere? I'd gladly open up a policy debate but I need to understand how this particular policy restriction came about in the first place. — JFG talk 18:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * JFG you've already mentioned it; Non-free_content  probably contains all the links you'll need, searching the talk page archives might throw up something as well.  In a nutshell the aim of the Wikimedia Foundation is that as little content as possible should be non-free wherever it is used and part of that limitation exercise is to reduce the number of permissible locations to articles.  This is a deliberately more stringent policy that "fair use" under US copyright law.  As a policy it is probably the most contentious and most discussed policy on Wikipedia and while you are welcome to initiate a discussion I think you chances of getting the policy amended are zilch.  This particular example would in all probability also fail WP:NFCC "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." in that a link to the search url which is not copyrighted does the job as well as the image, or if you think the image is much better stick your screenshot in Flickr or Instagram and link to that.  I'm not unsympathetic but I think you are going on what will be a fruitless and frustrating time if you try and chance policy. Nthep (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Jzsj
I believe I have the correct tag on File:InacioFortaleza.png but received a deletion warning (at the bottom of my talk page). Please let me know why the tag is rejected.Jzsj (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've linked the file, . You need to add Non-free logo on the filepage, the rationale alone is not enough.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying but I see no change in the page for this logo. I believe it should look like this one – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Snehasadan.png – similar to dozens of others I uploaded. I followed the same procedure for this logo, twice, and yet the page for File:InacioFortaleza.png still doesn't look right. I read on the other such pages: "To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an 'appropriate' rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template." I understand that this is something I should not do. But what more should I have been doing that I haven't? Thanks for any help with this.Jzsj (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Non-free file are required to have a a copyright license per WP:NFCC and a non-free use rationale per WP:NFCC. Look at File:Snehasadan.png and then look at File:InacioFortaleza.png. You should see that the former has a copyright license, but the latter does not. That is why the latter has been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F4. All you need to do is add a copyright tag to the file and everything should then be OK. You can find a listing of copyright tags at Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags. Just pick the one you feel is the most appropriate for this particular file and add it to the article. My suggestion would be to create a new level 2 section called "Licensing" beneath the "Summary" section, and then add the template there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, did as you directed and it worked.Jzsj (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Emanuela Bellezza
Hello! I tried to upload a picture of Emanuela Bellezza performing with Juanes on MTV Unplugged, but it was deleted. How can I upload a picture of that performance? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emyskate1234 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * the comments at c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Emanuela_Bellezza_in_2012.jpg tell you everything you need to know. Unless the photographer grants permission for the photo to be used it can't be uploaded. Nthep (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, so after the photographer sends the email, after how many days can we upload the picture again from the day he sends email of consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emyskate1234 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Once the photographer has sent the email upload the photo again but add OTRS pending into the licencing details as well. This tells anyone looking that the permission issues are being dealt with. Nthep (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It is best to let OTRS deal with the matter fully as they might not get the proper permission and you don't need to get it deleted again. However, once the permission has been received AND verified, the OTRS team will restore the deleted image with the appropriate OTRS Ticket. Make sure to includes the original file name. The OTRS volunteers can be quite backed up and on occasions it can be up to a month to get to some permission requests depending on the communications necessary. Please be patient. ww2censor (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright tag for a photo of a sculpture?
I've received notification of an issue from Wiki.

The Clare County Library kindly sent me a photo of a bust of a famous person that is in their library. When I asked if I could put their photo in my Wikipedia article they said yes. They requested that I write "Courtesy of Clare County Library" attached to the photo. I've done this, but Wiki tells me that the copyright tag is missing.

I do not know which copyright tag suits the situation.

What Wikipedia copyright tag should I use with this file?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurveyorMJF (talk • contribs) 05:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That depends entirely under what license they are prepared to release the image. Usually it is the photographer who owns the copyright and they must verify their permission under a free licence. We do not accept images for wikipedia use only. If the library are the copyright holder please have them verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT and/or point them to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.Also have the reference the image name if you have already uploaded it. Unfortunately, without such permission we cannot keep the image. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Response from SurveyorMJF: Thanks. In this case, I will let the system automatically delete the photo, because I do not want to put the library staff to any more trouble.  I realize now that the only safe and easy photos are those I take myself.  Cool with that.  Thanks for your help. SurveyorMJF (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Just be careful because some countries have freedom of panorama restrictions which can apply to 3D items like sculptures and monuments, as well as buildings. Ireland, where this bust is located, is ok per c:COM:FOP. ww2censor (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 Nice attack
Not sure this is entirely the place to put this, but it seems like more of a question than a "problem", so I'm not sure WP:CP is the right place either.

A user on this talk page has posted a translation of a news article that they have translated from French into English. The original French text was posted on the talk and removed by myself (twice), for COPYVIO (and actually may need revdel).

But what about the translation? Is an editor's full text translation of a copyrighted source covered by proxy under the original copyright? Timothy Joseph Wood 14:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Translations are considered derivative works under US law, so yes, the full inclusion of a translated article is a copyvio. --M ASEM (t) 20:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Commercial use of images
I'm not an expert on Wikipedia images, but this image file seems to be in conflict with Wikipedia’s ground rules for image use. Editor that posted this image says in the image description that it isn't available for commercial use. It says the same thing in the caption of this article. Have the rules changed?--Orygun (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, its likely the editor that uploaded it was not aware of what we'd require (free images require commercial reuse and modification). As it is on Commons, it would need to be deleted there. --M ASEM (t) 20:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tagged it for deletion on the commons because the free license tag conflicts with the non-commercial use statement in the description. The copyright holder will need to verify a free licence or it will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I deleted it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Galen Crew.jpg
Was wondering if the File:Galen Crew.jpg uploaded to Wikimedia has been approved for copyright permissions? Stephenleft (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it has already been deleted as a copyright violation. See c:File:Galen Crew.jpg. ww2censor (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status of Edward Ball photo
I decided to try to help out with FFD and I'm a bit stalled on my first one:

I wrote to Florida archines and they responded thusly:

I hope was can simply remove the pd notice, and replace with the requested attribution, but I'd like another opinion.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

My initial thought was that someone would respond that we must get a proper permission statement from them. However, I have looked a little further, and see that the Disclaimer and Copyright Information section of the website refers to Florida statutes, specifically Section 257.35(6) which states (near the end):

Any use or reproduction of material deposited with the Florida State Photographic Collection shall be allowed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4) provided that appropriate credit for its use is given.

While those aren't the exact words we use for a CC-BY license, I don't see any reason why it should not be interpreted as such a license. It clearly covers any use and the only restriction is the request for attribution.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's certainly *not* a CC-BY license. One might consider it a sort of custom license. When a license doesn't have a specific template on Wikipedia, the external source for the license should be linked. And if the only requirement is an attribution, some users add the loose Attribution template to make the bots happy. (N.B.: IMO, the Image from the Florida Photographic Collection can't be used, as it's more one user's personal template, and its wording is confusing.) In the last part of his mail, your correspondent from the Archives apparently tries to paraphrase s. 257.35(6). But an important, and somewhat unclear, part of the mail is the sentence where the correspondent states without explanation that the Archives is the copyright holder. They may be implying that this private donation from Morris (or all private donations) to the Archives was the object of a contract whereby the donator ceded to the Archives whatever copyright he may have had in the donated material. It is indeed possible that the Archives require the signing of a cession of copyright by the donators as a condition for the acceptance of the donation by the Archives. It would be nice if that could be written clearly somewhere. However, it doesn't solve the problem mentioned in the Files for discussion entry. The photographs collected and ceded by Morris were not created by him. Morris could not cede copyrights that he didn't own. If the author ceded his copyright to Morris, that would have to be documented. The image PR05222 at the Archives seems a cropped version of the image PT04236. The Archives do not seem to document the authorship. They don't even give the same year on the two versions. Evidence is missing to prove the claim of the Archives that they own the copyright on the photograph. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

How to Cite and Upload Images from Archive with permission
I am attempting to use photos from Northwestern University Archive's collection to help further the article that I am working on. They have given me permission, but I was wondering how to get that permission in writing so that I can use these images on Wikipedia without them being deleted. I want to do everything correctly and cite all my sources in the archive, but the copyright pages on Wikipedia don't provide me with a definite procedure in which to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorq13 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Have the Archive send the permission statement to WP:OTRS. Take note that we don't accept "for Wikipedia only" licenses.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Please note that what you must obtain is a free license, issued by the actual copyright owners of each photo. You did not tell what the photos are about, but from your contributions, I think we can guess ;). According to this page at Northwestern, the photos in their collection were collected from various sources and have various authors. In terms of copyrights, the collection could be a mix of photos whose copyrights are still owned by their respective authors and of photos that may have entered the public domain, depending on the facts for each photo: the year of its first publication, where it was published, if it had a copyright notice, etc. Consequently, from the relevant facts for each photo, the first step for you is to determine if the photo is under copyright or not and, if it is, who is the owner of the copyright. It can't be assumed that the Archive owns the copyrights on a photograph, unless a photo is documented as having been taken by an employee of the university or if they tell you clearly that the copyright (not the photo as an object, but the copyright) was specifically acquired by them from the original copyright owner. Your question being vague, it's not possible to tell more without knowing the facts about each photo. If the photos are online with their descriptive notices, it would probably help if you could link to them. After your research, if you come to the conclusion that some photos are not under copyright, you can upload them to Wikimedia, with the proper explanatory tags. We can help you more with that when you get to this step. For the photos that your research finds to be under copyright, you must obtain a clear free license from their respective copyright owners. Before you contact them, please see Commons:OTRS for the information about the procedure, what to ask them and what they will send to Wikimedia if they agree. Please upload all the free photos, either free from copyright or freely licensed, preferably to Wikimedia Commons instead of to Wikipedia, so they can be more easily available for use on the Wikimedia websites.  -- Asclepias (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

IMG
What does IMG stand for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2BF2:3000:3075:4F16:6BEA:59F3 (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see IMG. Maybe one of the entries there will match what you are looking for. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File Verification
i need help about my files that has been uploaded earlier,i would like if where this file came from — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galacticalguy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you asking about File:CCast 01 11.jpg and File:Soap Bubble Nebula.jpeg? You uploaded those image and must have found them somewhere, presumably online. Where was that (please post the urls) and what information was with the images? With that information we can assist you. ww2censor (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * File:Soap Bubble Nebula.jpeg is a low quality low resolution version of File:Fine Ring Nebula.jpg, so your upload will be deleted. Just use the better quality image. ww2censor (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright law of Spain
I have just learned that Spain has a "catch" in its copyright laws that essentially makes its waiting period for PD eighty years, rather than seventy, as generally indicated. This will adversely affect some files I've uploaded to Commons. Can those files be uploaded to English Wikipedia? (Some were created before 1923, others not.) If so, what are the appropriate tags to indicate that they are not free of copyright in their country of origin and that they should not be transferred to Commons? WQUlrich (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes they can. Include the appropriate PD-US tag and add – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * For files published before 1923 (not just created before 1923) outside the United States (and not published also in the United States within 30 days), the tag on Wikipedia would probably be Template:PD-US-1923-abroad, which already includes a "Do not move to Commons" part, which can be hidden if the file can be moved to Commons.
 * Other than a few situations, such works published in Spain after 1922 probably do not have PD tags on Wikipedia, as they would be cases of Template:Not-PD-US-URAA. However, seeing that many of your uploads are images of paintings, some images would be good cases of fair use for use in Wikipedia articles about the artists and about those paintings.
 * If you will forgive me for adding some suggestions about images of paintings on Commons, I see that often the sources of the files are insufficiently specified and linked. For the benefit of the potential reusers of Commons, it is important that they can know exactly where the photographic reproduction comes from and the policy of the source that made this particular photographic reproduction, so the reusers can know if they can reuse that file legally in their country and under what conditions and what the risks are. Remember for example the complaints filed by museums in the United Kingdom and in Germany about the use of their reproductions. Unfortunately, some uploaders seem to not notice sufficiently the information in Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. After the suit by a German museum last fall, Commons placed reminders about it at the top of some pages. Also on Commons, please do not forget to add the warning template Template:Not-PD-US-URAA to the images of paintings that are not in the public domain in the Unites States, so that readers are warned that those files can't be used freely in the United States. For a quick reference about the years, you may also find useful the summary in the documentation page of Template:URAA artist at Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Photo
Can I post this photo on Wikipedia? File:seth-gilliam.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckyabwitz (talk • contribs) 03:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are not linking to any image. We can't tell without knowing what the file is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no such image but today you made a request to upload a Getty Images photo of Seth Gilliam at Wikipedia:Files for upload/February 2016. Sorry but we don't allow non-free images of living people, especially ones from photo agencies, so no, you cannot use that photo. You must try to find a freely licensed one somewhere else. How about this Flickr image? ww2censor (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)