Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/March

Using pre-1923 photos of hemp from Wisconsin Historical Society?
I stumbled across a number of photos of cannabis farming on the Wisconsin Historical Society page. Some of them are post-1923, but for the pre-1923 ones are we free to upload them to Wikimedia Commons even through the WHS is claiming "copyright" on them and selling access to them? Pre-1923 in the US is fair game, right? Or do they have some copyright justification if it wasn't published publicly in the US until some date, like it was an old archive/personal photo not previously disseminated? I don't want to chicken out of using their materials just because they claim "copyright", but I want to make sure I'm following the proper rules. I realize I can't make them hand over a high-res image or anything, but the example pics are fine for WP display. Here's the link Suggestions? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Pre-1923" refers to published before 1923, not just created before 1923. See also Template:PD-US. A "pre-1923" public domain rationale, like other public domain rationales based on publication history, should ideally be supported with information about publication. If the original photograph is under copyright, that copyright is owned by its copyright owner, which may be the historical society only if it was legally transferred to them. If the original photograph is in the public domain and the historical society claims a copyright on the reproduction, the position of Wikipedia is expressed with Template:PD-art-US.  -- Asclepias (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Elizabeth Hamilton-Guarino, Author.jpg
I had submitted this file, and had emailed the confirming documentation from the author herself who had supplied the file to me. I am not certain why this file was deleted, when we complied with all that was asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawillia (talk • contribs) 18:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well according to the deletion history of the image, it was deleted for lack of permission. How did the author send the documentation you refer to? If it was sent to the OTRS team, per the details on your talk page, I'll tell you that they have rather a backlog but it will be undeleted when the permission is verified as valid. In such instances, where permission has been emailed by the author, you could have added a OTRS pending template to the image to try and avoid it being deleted but it's a bit late for that now. You can ask the deleting admin, Fastily (I always suggest a polite request) to restore the file in the meantime until it has been issued with an OTRS Ticket. ww2censor (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The author emailed the permission statement to me, and I forwarded it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. This was done on the same day as it was flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawillia (talk • contribs) 16:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case one of you should have received an autoreply with a ticket number that you can reference. According to this commons OTRS page the en-permission queue is currently backlogged 58 days, so you may need to be patient, but you could ask a question there. You can still ask the deleting admin to restore it as I suggested above. ww2censor (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Pulp art
An article with this title does not yet exist. I've been hesitating because my knowledge of fair use is equal to nothing. This topic can't exist without examples of this type of art. You can see an example here. I've been wanting to use fair use images for years, I've searched for information on WP and other sites, but all that happens is that I get more and more confused. Is there a simple explanation that I can read? Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  18:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's possible all the images you are interested in are still in copyright and as non-free images they would have to comply with all 10 non-free media policy guidelines and for a general article such as this, would require sourced commentary about the style of the individual artworks. Such images should not be uploaded until the article is in mainspace and not just a draft. However, depending on the publication, date of publication and copyright renewal, there is a chance you may discover some of the images fall under one of the following free copyright tags: PD-US-not renewed or PD-US-no notice and such images should be uploaded to the commons. You need to do more research and should review the commons Hirtle chart and these two pages should also be of help: http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/copyright-renewal.html and http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july08/hirtle/07hirtle.html. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a couple thousand free pulp covers to Commons (see here ), categorized by magazine and (when credited) artist, and others have uploaded more and more. I doubt that any nonfree/fair use images would be necessary, unless there's a particular artist wih sourced commentary who worked only for publishers that renewed their copyrights. The particular cover you cite as an example may have had its copyright renewed (see ), but there are couple dozen other covers by the same artist already at Commons . You can also find lots of examples of free black-and-white interior art at Project Gutenberg, at the Internet Archive (although there's an awful lot of nonfree work there as well), and a few at Commons {). And if there's a particular science fiction/fantasy pulp you're looking for a scan of, I may be able to help. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

A Copyright Question
I am wondering, I am perfectly fine with taking my picture down, I would just like to make sure that the picture will get taken down on its own. If I have to do anything manually, please tell me how to delete this file from Wikimedia Commons. Thanks AverageAVG (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverageLooby (talk • contribs)
 * Links to the images would have been useful, but here on the enwiki I found that you uploaded a copyright image of a living person File:Martin Štěpanovský.jpg, so that fails our strict non-free policy and it will be deleted in due course. That's what happens with images tagged for non-free deletion, so you don't have to do anything. You also uploaded File:Chris Coursey, the mayor of Santa Rosa, CA.jpg and now that you provided a source I have refined it and it's ok. I don't see that you uploaded any images on the commons. For some more information on copyright issues you may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

How to definitively satisfy Wiipedia's image copyright criteria
I have drafted an article and I acquired a photo, which is particularly relevant, to illustrate it. The granddaughter of the subject of the article gave permission on behalf of her family that the photo be used. She filled in and submitted a form I found somewhere on Wikipedia for this purpose. Someone at Wikipedia got back with a lot of 'what ifs..' One example was, 'yes, she gave her permission that it could be released into the public domain, but what if someone drew a mustache on it?' The subject's granddaughter responded that there are so many photos in the public domain that neither she nor her family would waste time worrying about such an eventuality. When I appeared to have cleared the 'what ifs' hurdle either that or another Wikipedian wrote back - 'ah yes, but who actually took this photo in 1939? Unless they were extremely old when they took it, it is their copyright and their permission is required.' After some sleuthing I found the owner of the photo, taken by her grandmother, now deceased, given to her mother, also deceased, and now the property of the this lady who is more that happy to give it free and clear to the granddaughter of the subject so that it can illustrate a Wikipedia article about him. She is also happy for it to be released into to the public domain and is undisturbed about the possibility of it being misused. All of this has taken an inordinate amount of time resulting in me parking the whole project in spite of the many hours of work involved so far. I'm concerned now that another objection to the use of the photo will be put forward, such as 'how can the person who claims ownership prove that her dead grandmother took the photo?' The objections could go on forever. I'm wondering if anyone in my position ever proposed the Facbook solution:

The legal Terms of Use of facebook say: "When you publish content or information using the PUBLIC SETTING, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)." and "By "use" we mean use, run, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of." https://www.quora.com/Are-Facebook-photos-published-on-a-public-account-considered-public-domain

The granddaughter of the subject of my article has suggested that she post the photo of her grandfather on her Facebook page, using the public setting. If she does this, can the photo then be used to illustrate the Wikipedia article about him without further ado? If not, what can I do?

Believeingood (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I presume you are talking about an image for the draft article Draft:R.B. Walsh (Risteárd Breathnach). Thanks for the details above. It seems the OTRS volunteer did not really get to the nub of the problem immediately, so let's see if we can help you. First we need to know who took the photo, if it was published and when, and if, they are alive or not. Oh, plus the country can also have an effect on copyright status and term of copyright. The questions can be complex but images that are donated need to be freely licensed which allows anyone to do anything with the photo including using it commercially and make derivative works from it. So, does the granddaughter know who took the photo or not and maybe it is even a family photo that she owns the copyright to by being a heir, will she licence it freely? If she replies no, then she can't donate the photo under a free licence. These is another option that can apply to dead people, which Risteárd Breathnach is having died in 1992, and that is for it to be used under our strict non-free policy when it must comply with all 10 guidelines. Put simply it could be used in the infobox of an article about the subject BUT only when it is in mainspace, so because it is currently a draft, you would have to wait until it gets accepted as a mainspace article.


 * Posting the photo to facebook still does not answer the questions posed above and would not help her or you. Hopefully that helps but continue this post if you need more help. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I know I wrote an acknowledgement to your response, but I don't see it anywhere. Did you get it? If not, sincere apologies and many thanks for your explanation. It's extremely helpful. Believeingood (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It sounds like it might be about this file (deleted), discussed there in 2016. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. That's a reference to the image I'm hoping to use.


 * I'm a newbie, and understand your frustration. Here's something more to shake your head about. WMF has "safe harbor" protection, which, if I understand the situation correctly, means that you and not WMF are liable if stuff hits the fan about the image, yet reviewers persist in overly analytical inspection of images, IMHO. It astounds me. DennisPietras (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the reviewers are people like you, and not people from the WMF. Also, the WMF does cover your back to an extent by appropriately evaluating and handling DMCA takedown requests. You can see them here wmf:Category:DMCA. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Norway
Hello,

I would like to add two JPEG images as reference links to the Wiki page regarding the vote in the lower house of the Storting on same-sex marriage. These images were acquired after a few days of emailing an Advisor to the Archives of the Storting named Marthe Hommerstad (Marthe.Hommerstad@stortinget.no) and asking her for the image files.

I'm not able to show you what they looks like and I'm actually in the middle of emailing her for permission to utilize them. I'll notify you on any updates on this topic.

KLO2015 (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not normal practice to use images as a reference (or reference links?) even if they are public domain or released under an acceptable licence so perhaps you need to explain what you are trying to do. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Photo Copyright Question
Is it acceptable to upload an image that has been widely circulated by many media outlets? Do I need written permission from the media outlet itself or the original owner of the file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BJ28MA (talk • contribs) 11:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not acceptable. Permission from the copyright holder is (almost) always necessary. The bar for non-free images is very high. Perhaps the best place to start reading on this is Non-free content. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Twitter Profile Pictures
Hello powers that be! I am trying to improve the New Democratic Party leadership election, 2017 page by adding a picture of candidate Guy Caron. I was looking around for a good photo, and I decided that his Twitter Profile picture would work well. That being said, I have little to no knowledge about intellectual property in this field, and I was hoping for some guidance; specifically, is it acceptable for me to upload someone's twitter profile picture? Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radix838 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not. I refer you to the answer to the question immediately above this one. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the intellectual property owned by Twitter or by the user? In other words, if I got permission of the twitter user, could I use the photo? Radix838 (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The copyright owner is the photographer (unless the photograph was taken in the course of performing his/her duties for her/his employer under a regular employment contract, e.g. a regular staff photographer for a newspaper, or unless the photographer explicitly ceded his/her copyright through a special contract). So, you need a free license from the photographer (or evidence that the photograph was taken by a staff photographer in the course of her/his regular employment, or a declaration from the photographer that the copyright was ceded to another person through a contract, and then a free license from that other person). A solution can be to ask the user to give you the information about the photographer, so you can contact the photographer directly and ask him/her if she/he would accept to offer a free license and to provide verifiable confirmation of it. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional to the above comments, basically most images you find on the internet are copyright to someone, usually the photographer as mentioned, and unless there is a specific note that an image is freely licenced under a licence we accept, you can pretty mush assume it is not, so we can't use it and you should not upload it. It's very seldom you will find a Twitter, Facebook, other social media website having verifiable freely licenced images. Flickr is another source for images but unfortunately their members can select a free licence even for images that are clearly copyright, so cautions is advised there. You can always post a link here and ask our opinion but you may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

hurry - photo deleted improperly - how to fix?
On Wikipedia page Jimmy Cozier (jazz musician) we included a photo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jimmy_Cozier,_Harlem_2012,_photo_by_TeruoNakamura_(musician).jpg

This photo is owned by the subject, Jimmy Cozier, and is unique, irreplaceable. The photo was taken. by Jimmy's friend and musical colleague, Teruo Nakamura.

Jimmy has the right to use this photo in any way he chooses.

Someone named Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wrote and said they are from Wikipedia and claims that there is a problem with use of a photo.

He said the photo will be deleted by tomorrow.

Please tell me clearly and in easy to follow instructions how to put the photo back up and how to fix the error. Thank you, Beth BAsound Basound (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We need written permission from the photographer, sent to WP:OTRS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Relax and take easy, like all good jazz musicians do.  It may be deleted this time around but don't sweat.  Think you will find the copyright holder is  Teruo Nakamura (as it appear in the EXIF) . Ask him to upload the image afresh to Wikimedia Commons. See;  & the all important  OTRS can be submited here. Not going to baffle you with the geeky things here just now. Just ask the photographer if he is willing to upload to wikimedia commons and we can take it from there. --Aspro (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This involves a non-free photo of a living person uploaded with Wikipedia-only permission, not a free license, and a use rationale indicating that although free images were available (the subject is an active performer), the nonfree photo was aesthetically superior and more recent. The permission also seemed to be based on ownership of the physical photo, not the copyright. This was a pretty clear-cut case, and easy to reverse if the necessary permission is supplied. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree. Jimmy may have given the impression that has the right to use this photo in any way he chooses but that is moot. The very simplest route is to persuade  the photographer to upload it afresh 'himself' to Wikimedia Commons with the 'right' permission (e.g. CC-BY-SA copyright, meaning he still retains the copyright to his photograph). The upload wizard will guide him though the simple process.  That way, he won't have to submit an OTRS because he himself has uploaded it.  He doesn't have to do more than that!  If he then emails you the file name he uploads it with, we can then categorize it etc, and you/we can add it to the article. Just go through the simple steps one-at-a-time. Suggest you Cut & Past these posts, send them to him by  email so that he understand to context of your request. It is also a win-win for him too,  as it will bring his work to a wider audience and rise his profile as a photographer.  This why many professionals upload some of their images to WC. --Aspro (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

2nd Opinion required on use of a Non Free Image
Please see Talk:John Gerovich, where an iconic/historically significant photograph (File:JohnGerovich.jpg) has been rejected by a user as failing WP:NFCC. I disagree, but rather than edit warring, I'd like a 2nd (or 3rd) opinion please. The-Pope (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article already has a freely licenced image that essentially shows the same move by John Gerovich, so a non-free image is not necessary for a reader to understand the article. In that case it fails WP:NFCC because a free image is available and being used. No, it is not the same but serves the same purpose and as Australia has the freedom of panorama exception for public sculptures we really can't use the photo. Regarding WP:NFCC, that can only be satisfied if you can find critical commentary about the photo itself not just a statement that the photo was taken, by whom and when. I see that similar comments have been noted on the article talk page. Sorry I think you are out of luck even though this image has been here for quite some years. ww2censor (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Winchester, Virginia seal question
I've just been looking at the Winchester, Virginia city seal and I note that it has the non-free media tag to it. However as it is the Seal of a city council in the US, would it not fall under one of the US government public domain tags? If not that, Looking at this history which said this version was created in 1936, would the US PD no notice tag also apply?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 23:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Only works of the federal government and those of a few states like Arizona, Florida, Arkansas, California and Massachusetts are in the public domain by default. Other state and municipal works in the US may be copyrighted. As to 1936, irrespective of whether there was a copyright notice on the first publication of this seal, we would need to know whether any copyright was renewed in 1964. I'm going to take a look at the records, and File:Winchester Virginia Seal.jpg is actually slightly different than the original 1936 version, so it may be even younger. De728631 (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, please let me know what you find out.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Any further information, or would it be easier to have an SVG version created?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

File for discussion
This file is currently not useful at all and should be deleted https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Pauly2095hk.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauly2095 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The file you've linked to is being hosted on Wikimedia Commons. If you feel it should be deleted, you will need to do so in accordance with c:Commons:Deletion policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tagged it for deletion on the commons. ww2censor (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I use openstreetmap screenshots?
My question: Can I use openstreetmap screenshots? I work on an African language wikipedia, so it is easy to take a screenshot and label it afterwards (names etc). Is there a copyright problem with that? Kipala (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It is OK providing you abide by the copyright. openstreetmap.org-copyright Labeling afterward, turns it into a derived work which the license also allows for. In short, you must credit OpenStreetMap. The way they recommend, is you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”. This is  compatible with Wikipeda copyright requirements -should you wish to add them here. So no problem.--Aspro (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There is a specific template for this Openstreetmap (not to be confused with OpenStreetMap). Nthep (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks everybody, fast and clear response!!Kipala (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about how to get a Getty Image
The page Shawn Christensen is very close to getting nominated for Good Article status. However, it requires one or two images. Considering this is the most recent look at the person in question, how would I go about nabbing this image? What licensing rationale would I use on both Wikipedia and the website in question? I don't have experience with Getty Images, so this is why I am asking. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Getty Images are by default things we can't use because of WP:NFCC since Getty is a commercial service and are unlikely to give permission. Now if Getty is claiming copyright on an image which is public domain then you could use it but this does not seem to be the case here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Should you wish to pursue this, try his booking agency for start. Type of Event: select 'Other' from the drop down list. For: Talent Budget: I'm looking for talent to donate their time. For: Target Audience: Community. For Additional Comments: “Shawn Christensen has a Wikipedia article about him that everybody visits but he needs a photo of himself there. If he can supply one (or two or three) by a photographer that is familiar with Creative Commons (and most are these days), we can place it (or them) on the article about  him. He just only has to ask the photographer(s)  to upload it (them)  to Wikipedia Commons. Can you email this request  to Shawn please, as he may be puzzled as to why he does not currently have a photo appearing on Wikipedia. Many thanks. P.S. The photographer can leave a brief note on >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shawn_Christensen< so we know know the file name and can thus can find them on Wikimedia Commons and include them in the article .”


 * Re-edit the suggestion above as you see fit. Do let us know how you get on.--Aspro (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Digest what we said. The image that you just uploaded is a copyvio and will be deleted. Informed you as to how you can gain a ligitamte image. Please don't attempt short cuts around our policies as it adds to our work load. Image in question is  --Aspro (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't assume bad faith with me. The copyright holder is emailing OTRS, confirming their explicit permission for the file. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 22:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, this isn't a Getty Image. The photographer from The Salt Lake Tribune agreed to contribute it, so they're emailing Wikimedia their formal consent. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 22:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There is a long backlog on OTRS. Regardless of any verbal agreement you may have made with the photographer, until the OTRS come though it is a copyvio. However, Trent Nelson (the photographer) can place the tag   on the WC image file to inform us that his  OTRS is in the pipeline and save 'you'  having to uploading it again or getting it un-deleted by an administrator.--Aspro (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . As this image has now been deleted, why not suggest and encoursge, the photographer to upload it himself to WC. It is a win-win for him and you. The backlog is currently about 160 days on OTRS. By uploading it himself, his image can come on-line almost immediately without the need for (and delay) of an OTRS. Also, by uploading it himself, which is simple (as you know) with Upload Wizard, he will then have an WC account for which to add and bring more of his photos to a wider audience, thus raising his profile. Just a suggestion. Cut-and -past this post to him and see what his response is. --Aspro (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I emailed Trent, saying he should upload it himself. So, I hope it pans out well. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 20:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hope so too. Here's fingers crossed.--Aspro (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Need Help Determining Copyright Status

 * This photo archive site shows date images were created and says “Public”; however, I’m not sure if that’s short for “Public Domain” or what. Can anyone figure out if these images are available for use in Wikipedia?--Orygun (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's just Google's indication that this album archive is publicly accessable, and that it isn't private. I don't think it has anything to do with copyright. Oregon also does not release government works as public domain, so that does not apply here either. If you would like to use these images, you should request permission. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since Google is closing Panoramio and only hosting on their own site, the images no longer show the actual image copyright licence. As user:AntiCompositeNumber says "Public" just means the images are available for the public to view and not for private viewing only. So we cannot say with any certainty what an image's copyright is. It's a problem that will likely not be solved and the wikimedia foundation may not even have sufficient influence to get them to show the license, which they used to do for Panoramio images. ww2censor (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg 150px
Hello I have a question is the United States Postal Service Logo a copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk • contribs)
 * What's the question? ww2censor (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello I have a question is the United States Postal Service Logo a copyright?


 * Other knowledgeable editors please ancer the question


 * Hello. On this page Political appointments of Donald Trump some one is taking away United States Postal Service Logo and he thinks it's a copyright and if it is all the other logo's are a copyright also right? if this logo File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg is not a copyright can you please add it back on there and try to lock it in place so people don't try to delate it? Thanks so much.


 * I've already replied to this question on my talk page where the same anonIp asked some time ago. ww2censor (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . If you click on the file's page, you'll see that it is licensed as non-free content. There are specific rules regarding how non-free content may be used on Wikipedia, and each use such a file is required to satisfy all 10 of the non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. These criteria are pretty restrictive by design which means that non-free images cannot be used as easily as perhaps a freely licensed/public domain image such as File:US-WhiteHouse-Logo.svg or some of the other files being used in that particular article.
 * Generally, non-free use is only allowed when there is a strong contextual connection be what is written in the article and what is seen in the image. In other words, a non-free image is generally allowed seeing it actually significant helps the reader understand what is written in the article to such a degree that not seeing the image would be detrimental to that readser's uderstanding. On the other hand, a non-free image is not usually allowed when the main purpose seems to be simply to show the image, but not discuss it. The postal service logo does seem to be being used in a decorative manner in that particular article for the reasons explained in MOS:LOGO and WP:NFLISTS, so I think it's removal was justified. If you disagree, you can start a discussion about the file's use at WP:FFD to see what the Wikipedia community says. I hope that helps clarify things a little bit for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok I have one more question If it is not aloud to be in a article why is it in the United States Postal Service   The United States Postal Service one then? Should someone take that away also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC+9) ‎
 * Wikipedia does allow the use of non-free images under certain specific conditions as explained in Wikipedia:Non-free content. It is generally considered acceptable for a non-free logo of a company or organization, etc. to be used as the primary identification at the top of a stand-alone article about said company or organization because the entire article (not just one part) is believed to provide the context for non-free use. Ideally, the article will include some sourced content about the company's or organization's branding, logo, etc.
 * Try and think of it as something similar to an article about a particular book. Wikipedia generally allows a non-free image of a book cover to be used as the primary means of identification in an article about the book itself because it is believed that within that article there is going to be sourced discussion about the book, the way it was marketed/branded, the reaction it received and possibly its cover. The book cover can be seen as a way for the reader to identify the subject of the article. However, such non-free use may not be allowed in an article about the author who wrote the book because that article is more likely to be about the author's life and accomplishments as a whole. The book in question may be mentioned by name somewhere within the article, but seeing the book cover is likely not needed for whatever is written to be understood by the reader. Of course, not every case is the same and sometimes further discussion is needed to figure out whether non-free use is acceptable on a case-by-case basis as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Uploading of image
I am having a picture that i have got by searching in Google.Its the photo of a person named Jacques Cavallier.A page with such a name is already present in wikipedia but the photo of that person is not given in the Wikipedia page.The link to that page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Cavallier. So,can i upload his picture into web for placing it in that(Jacques Cavallier's)Wikipedia page?Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adithyak1997 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Most likely not, but we'd need a link to the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The link of image is https://alchetron.com/Jacques-Cavallier-449871-WAdithyak1997 (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The provenance and copyright status of that file does not appear to be clear, so I am thinking "can't be used". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving works of the Philippine Government to Wikimedia Commons
Per Wikimedia Commons' policy, it allows hosting of images and other content made by the Philippine government. However, such content is deemed to be non-free and fair use rationales are needed such content are locally uploaded to the English Wikipedia. Should works made by the Philippine government be moved or reuploaded to Commons since the latter has a more allowable content license for such works? - Ian Lopez @ 15:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Files for discussion/2017 March 18
You are invited to join the discussion at. Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Photo was pulled from Stella Marks article
Hi, I recently put a new article about the Australian miniature portrait painter Stella Marks. I added a self portrait in the infobox. I got a reply from Remakasoud2000Bot, questioning the copyright. I forwarded a letter from Stella Marks grandson giving permission. Today I discovered the picture has been removed. Can you please advise me what I need to do to get it returned to the infobox. Thanks Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Time River (talk • contribs) 07:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If you are asking about the image File:Stella Marks, self-portrait, ca. 1940.jpg, it was removed because there was no evidence of permission for over a week which is approximately the usual time allowed for such issues to be resolved or some action taken. If the heirs are prepared to release the image as freely licenced they need to provide that permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT quoting the image name. Unfortunately the OTRS system, provided by volunteers, is rather backlogged, up to 60 days or so at the moment, so you will need to be patient. Where did you forward the permission to and did you get a return email with a ticket number? The image will be restored in due course if the permission is verified. ww2censor (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

AMAR Foundation logo
Hi Wikipedia

I am creating a page for a charity I used to work for, AMAR Foundation, and they have given me permission to upload their logo (below). How can I put the necessary code into the article to show that this is a permitted image?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AMAR_logo_green.jpeg

Thanks, Wil — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilHutton (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Logos can almost always be claimed as fair use. I can help you fill out the rationale, as long as you provide one thing — what's the source of the image?  If you provide the URL where you got the image (or if you didn't get it from a website, if you provide the non-web source for the image), a rationale can easily be written up.  Please note that fair-use images must be used in at least one article (and they may not appear in other kinds of pages, such as drafts and sandbox pages), so you'll need to tell me the name of the article where you want to use it.  Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Portrait photo for John J. Clayton entry
Dear Wikipedia: Looking for your assistance. I've received a notice that the permission for the single photo that accompanies the entry for writer John J. Clayton is not sufficient. Please tell me exactly what you need... Below I have copied the permission I sent for this photo taken by the author's daughter. It is a family photo and her permission is given by email. I need explicit instructions of what you need me to do at this point. Many thanks, Sharon Dunn PS I came back and scrubbed all the email addresses out of this email correspondence under advice of Wikipedia's notice.

Sharon Dunn AttachmentsFeb 8

to permissions-en ‪Ramaksoud2000Bot‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪File permission problem with File:John J. Clayton,...‬". Thanks for uploading  File:John J. Clayton, 2014, American writer of short stories and novels.jpg.

PLEASE SEE PERMISSION GIVEN ME VIA EMAIL, BELOW, WHICH I AM FORWARDING TO YOU. I HOPE THIS IS SUFFICIENT. MANY THANKS.

Sharon Dunn

-- Forwarded message -- From: Laura Baker Date: Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:18 AM Subject: Re: John Jacob Clayton photo permission To: Sharon Dunn

Re: John Jacob Clayton photo

I give my permission to use on Wikipedia this photo I took 9/6/13.

Laura Clayton Baker

On Feb 7, 2017, at 10:03 PM, Sharon Dunn wrote:

Hi Laura, In creating a Wikipedia entry for your Dad I want to use the photo you took of him on Bound Brook Island Beach. I have dated it 2014 (though I think it was earlier than that). Wikipedia requires that I have an email from you stating that you give permission for me to put this photo up on Wikipedia. Could you send me that email, putting your street address (maybe work address?) below yr name?

Your name will not be posted on Wikipedia (there is no photo credit, as such) and the photo will go on to Wikipedia Commons --ok? (Actually that photo is already on Google images because it was on one of his book covers...but on Google it is quite fuzzy.)

Thanks, Sharon

Sharon Dunn

Attachments area — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharondunn (talk • contribs) 20:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * the problem is the first line "I give my permission to use on Wikipedia", that isn't sufficient permission. Wikipedia uses content that as much as possible is free for reuse by others, anywhere.  As such it is preferred that images are released under a licence like this - Cc-by-sa-3.0.  The easiest way to deal with this is for Laura to follow the process at commons:Commons:Email templates to send her permission directly to Wikimedia. Nthep (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Abey George.jpg
The article Abey George carries an image that was shoot in a photo shoot of the subject and the text created by the author. However alerts have been posted with regards to copyrights. As these are the creation of the uploader, it is impossible to provide documentary proof of copyright. How can deletion of the file be avoided on this ground and what permissions need be taken or given for this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D308:920D:C0F8:2B70:FB0B:8762 (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi 2405:204:D308:920D:C0F8:2B70:FB0B:8762. First, there is no article Abey George, but I think you're refering to User:Abey.George.


 * As for File:Abey George.jpg, everything depends upon whether you are the owner of the photo's copyright. The copyright holder of photographs is generally considered to be the person who takes the photo, not the subject of the photo. So, if you're the person who took the photo, then you can agree to donate it to Wikipedia if you like. For more information on this, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. However, if you didn't take the photo and did not obtain ownership of its copyright through some kind of copyright transfer agreement, then you're going to provide proof which shows that the copyright holder of this photo has agreed to release it under a free license compatible with Wikpedia's content licensing policy. For more information on how to obtain this permission, please read Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Heinlein-competent-man-quote.jpg
This image rendition of the Robert Heinlein quote (which also appears in the article as text) strikes me as questionable; I'm dubious whether, as a stand-alone image, it meets fair-use standards. Mangoe (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:NFCC because the information (the quote) can be covered by text alone. See WP:NFC. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)