Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/April

Old Public Records - Plats
I am checking whether public records filed with county government are public domain and free to upload to Commons, especially those filed before 1923. My specific item is a 1907 town plat hosted by City of Hays/Ellis County Geospatial Data Portal:

Plan of Yocemento, Mill and Grounds. See Yocemento, Kansas

Some content of the item is public record statements from 1997.

I have received an email from Eamonn Coveney, GIS Specialist with City of Hays / Ellis County stating "I have verified that all of the materials on the hosting website are public domain, and do not claim any rights."

Am I good upload?

What Copyright tag should I use in generally from this source? Not all of the public content is pre-1923. IveGoneAway (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * What would the situation be if I redacted (whited out) the 1997 county resolution and notice? Would that permit the pre-1923 free and clear. Would redaction be necessary for me to upload it? IveGoneAway
 * PD-because| the plat image was created before 1923 while the 1997 content is public government notice? (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC) 23:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

File:2015 RT gala dinner in Moscow, general Flynn next to President Putin.jpg
This file was uploaded as Non-free historic image and sourced to this blog (blog's in Russian). The file has a non-free use rationale for Michael Flynn, but it's not being used in that article; it's currently being used in Jill Stein. The file was being used in Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Trump–Russia dossier as well, but I removed it per WP:NFCCE.

It seems unlikely that the blog given as the source for the image is actually the original source of the photo. Given the nature of the photo, it seems like this might have been something taken by an official government photographer of either Russia or the US. So, I was wondering if anyone might be able figured where this originally came from and whether it might capable of converting to PD. If the blog is the original source or the file needs to remain non-free, then even its non-free use in the Stein article seems questionable and the file might need to be discussed at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Both the Washington Post and NBC attribute this image to "Mikhail Klimentyev / Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP file" and we usually don't accept press agency images unless we can vefify it is freely licensed. For me, it fails both WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC because it is an AP image and the information in the image can easily be stated in prose for the reader's understanding of the topic thereby making the image mere decoration. ww2censor (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it OK to refer a copyrighted image from English wikipedia in an article from another language?
I have to write an article about M.C.Escher in my native language Wikipedia (ml). I would like to include some of his works in the article. However, these are copy righted here M.C.Escher official website. I saw that the English article already has the copyright to publish the image.

copyright

Can I simply give a link to this image without violating any copyrights? Ukri82 (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not really that we "have the copyright" to publish this image; we are using it as a non-free file under a claim of fair use. I don't know whether ml-wiki has an image policy allowing non-free items in a similar way as en; if it does, you may be able to upload the image locally under a similar rationale. If not, and if you can only use a hyperlink to an off-wiki copy of the image instead, it would be better to link directly to the official Escher website rather than to the unlicensed copy here on en-wp. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Uploading Image from World Digital Library
Is it acceptable to upload here an image taken straight from World Digital Library without their consent? Be it with or without a bit of modification from the uploader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejrusselllim123 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That depends on when and where it was published. Not everything at the Library of Congress, of which World Digital Library is a part, is in the public domain so you need to verify the copyright status of anything you want to upload. Remember that everything published pre-1923 is PD and after that date lots of factors are of concern. You may want to review the Hirtle chart first. Remember that making modifications does not necessarily create a new copyright, so don't claim such work as you own creation, just you own derivative work and attribute the original creator. ww2censor (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

When did Australia change to 70 year terms?
Asking because this template needs to be extensively overhauled.: PD-Australia ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Headshot of a non-living person, unsure of source
I noticed our article on Gail Zappa does not contain an image. She died in 2015, so there is no chance to produce a new, free image. After looking for something we could maybe use I found numerous instances of this image. It seems pretty obviously to be a publicity headshot (she did some modeling in her younger days) but I can’t find the original source of the image, which is not surprising considering its apparent age.

So my question is: would this qualify as Non-free promotional fair use? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair use is acceptable for deceased individuals provided you have done some searching to see if there are free images available (nothing is stopping you from saying you did and moving on though). You would use non-free biog-pic and non-free use rationale biog. --Majora (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I really did look and didn’t find anything, so I guess I’ll upload it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Fastly logo
Since the Fastly draft is moved from mainspace, please check if this logo https://www.fastly.com/assets/logo-868441c493c3a51da7ef15f5d32db67d502cb008d612c338b5f8701e7744a1fa.svg is under WP:TOO or a non-free logo? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:DF0:89AF:E1D:BDC4 (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Including copyrighted material I own
I uploaded File:Dioxide Materials Logo.png for use in Dioxide Materials. I am the creater of the logo, owner of the copyright, and owner of Dioxide Materials. How do I properly indicate that it is being properly uploaded with permission.

Maselrich (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See Donating copyrighted materials, Logos, Requesting copyright permission, Copyrights and Declaration of consent for all enquiries or c:Commons:Email templates. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:DF0:89AF:E1D:BDC4 (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

California Department of Public Health
I know the California Health and Human Services Agency is copyrighted. The California Department of Public Health is a subdivision of the California Health and Human Services Agency. The California Department of Public Health states "In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain" I think this PDF file is in the public domain. Information including things like images are in the public domain unless otherwise noted. Is there state law that overrides the disclaimer on their website? See Template:PD-CAGov and see c:Template:PD-CAGov. I think the templates may need to be updated to clarify this matter. QuackGuru ( talk ) 23:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * File:It's not just harmless water vapor.png

I noticed the graphic appears to have a C with a circle. Is the C with the circle indicating it is copyrighted? QuackGuru ( talk ) 23:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed a C in a circle symbol means copyright is claimed, but California is one of the few US states whose government works are in the public domain, so no need to worry about it. Look at the copyright license in the file for more details. ww2censor (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The website states "In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain" For the graphic they may be indicating a copyright. However, the copyright license in the file states "California's Constitution and its statutes do not permit any agency to claim copyright for "public records" unless authorized to do so by law." That seems to mean even if they claim copyright for work they created it is not valid unless authorized to do so by law. QuackGuru ( talk ) 13:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Inner ejecta of SN 1987A seen with ALMA.png
Hello, I received a message from Dianaa which informs me that the above mentioned image will be deleted. I have nothing against it, as the image can be downloaded easily by anybody interested. However, I will ask the owner for the permission (he is one of my collaborators). Thank you very much, Kind Regards, Patrice Bouchet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbouchet (talk • contribs) 06:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to have the copyright holder follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT or have them put it on their own website with a clear statement of what license they are releasing it under, such as cc-by-sa-4.0. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Where does the copyright tag go?
I'm told by MifterBot to put the tag PD-Self on a picture I've uploaded.

Where do I put it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryRarelyStable (talk • contribs) 10:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well you did put it there but not correctly. You don't use the "tl|" when adding the copyright template to an image, only when you want to link to the template itself. I've fixed it and added both an information template, so please check it is correct, as well as a move to commons tag so it can be found by all other language wikis. BTW, a you could add a location for the place. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Should partial article text copyvios be revdel'd?
Reading Copyright_problems, I see The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it (...), the most natural reading of which is that after reverting one does not have to request revdel. However, I was almost certain that was supposed to be used for all or almost all such violations. What is it?

For context, see Teahouse, although I (and Nick Moyes) got the infringement wrong. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: the link in "context" is NOT a copyvio on Wikipedia, but the question of what should have been done if it had been, and whether the instructions need to be clarified, remains. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Two admins that deal extensively with text copyright enforcement, and, would probably be the best to answer such a question. I'm going to assume that once it is confirmed copyvio it should always be marked for copyvio-revdel. Assuming that the owner of the copyright is going to ask for it to be taken down only opens us up to further risk. --Majora (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We've clarified this at WP:DCV. Removal of the text followed by revision deletion is the standard we now use. I have not been around long enough to be sure, but at one point I thought that it was deletion followed by selective restoration (though I could be wrong). This advice might have been from that era. From a practical standpoint, revdel as a a standard practice makes sense: we want to prevent people from restoring it on accident. From an ethical standpoint it also makes sense: we certify that all of our text is available under a free license for reuse. By having it publicly available we are saying this, and might be causing other people to violate copyright.In terms of the specific guideline quoted, that is for things listed at WP:CP. It needs to be in the history so people can view it and determine if it is actually copyright. Once a determination has been made, it will either be revdel'd or restored. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Does providing direct links to articles on academia.edu violate Wikipedia's policy on copyrights?
Hi, a certain editor is giving me grief on a source (Zubova 2015, DOI= 10.1016/j.aeae.2016.02.014) at the Afontova Gora article, probably because it currently returns (inactive 2018-02-13) from the DOI search parameter. However, if you search for the article DOI on Google Scholar, a direct link to the PDF will show up, with a working link to the article on academia.edu. I didn't provide a direct link to the source since I suspected that doing so might violate Wikipedia's policy on copyright protection. I could provide a direct link to the article stored on academia.edu, but I'm afraid that it might violate Wikipedia's policies on copyright. And, is that even necessary, when users can just search for the article themselves on Google Scholar? Thanks, Fraenir (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

map
How can I insert the map of Guwahati? I am confusedPonjit1234 (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you mean, . There already is a map of its location within India on Guwahati. Most maps are copyrighted so you can't just take one off of the Internet and use it here. That would be a copyright violation. --Majora (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Where do you want to insert the map? The article Guwahati already has a map. Do you want to put this map somewhere else or add a different map to the article? You may want to read WP:IUP and its linked pages. ww2censor (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Bobby BoundsVSPSU.jpg
This is uploaded as "own work", but it looks like a scan from a newspaper so that claim seems a bit questionable. Any idea how to find out were this came from? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: File was deleted as a obvious copyvio. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

File:United Nations Peacekeeping logo.png
Does this need to licensed as Non-free logo? Can it be converted to c:Template:PD-US-no notice-UN or some other PD license? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As per, |this copyright notice it seems the logo which can be found at |1 is non-free logo and cannot be used unless stipulated clearly (try using Template:Non-free_use_rationale_logo to do this!). -- Waddie96 (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Huaraz plaza.jpg photographer question
The file File:Huaraz plaza.jpg is licensed PD-self. The summary text says "Took this photo myself whilst in Peru last summer (2005)" while the licensing section says "my mate, billy headdon, took this pic when we were in Peru last summer (2005)." Do we delete the image for improper licensing (i.e. uploader didn't own copyright), or is there a less extreme way to approach this? Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia needs permission of the original copyright holder. When it's obvious that such permission has not been given, the file can be tagged for deletion per WP:F9. When it's not so obvious, it can be tagged for deletion per WP:F11. This photo is pretty old and looks like a personal photo uploaded in good faith. It also goes back to 2006 when OTRS was just starting out and licensing requirements might not have been as rigorously applied/followed as they are today. (Some files from way back then have even been grandfathered in despite lacking official OTRS verification.) The editor who uploaded this file made only a handful of edits, so tagging the file with npd is probably not going to get a response and the file will be deleted after seven days; moreover, the file is not being used anywhere, so there's really no encyclopedic reason to keep it on Wikipedia per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. There's no reason for Wikipedia to locally host a file licensed as "PD-self" even if the current licensing is acceptable; so, it should either moved to Commons or deleted altogether.  -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

UK Politicians' Official photos
Hi there

Does anybody know why all of the official Parliamentary photographs have had a big exclamation mark and a "rights warning" added to them? e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_portrait_of_Ms_Diane_Abbott.jpg

I've asked about this before but despite people telling me they're ok to use in election infoboxes, I can't shake the feeling that we're being told not to use these photos when such a warning is added. Surely this defeats the whole purpose of these photos, which is that they are public domain portraits that the MPs volunteered for? I know this must seem like a silly question, but for casual editors like me, who don't have a detailed knowledge of copyright law, these warnings really dissuade me from using the images in election infoboxes for articles, because I keep getting worried I'm not allowed to use them.

I suppose I just wanted to raise my concerns, which is that from my perspective, seeing a big exclamation mark, accompanied by the words "warning: the person(s) shown may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses" without anything specifying what those uses are, is a pretty clear indication that we're not allowed to use the image in any capacity. Can these warnings be updated to be clearer? Without any indication as to what we can use the images for, I don't use them at all because I want to be certain the images in election infoboxes are free to use and these big warning labels imply that they aren't free to use. Can someone help me here? FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey FriendlyDataNerdV2. For more information see c:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. But in a nutshell, just because it's free to use, doesn't mean there aren't any restrictions on how you use it for reasons not related to copyright. This is more for people who reuse content from Commons/Wikipedia than it is for our purposes. So, we're perfectly fine using these in an article for educational purposes where she is the subject, but for example, if a company like Purdue Pharma decided to reuse the image in a commercial selling medication for chronic bad breath, she may have legal recourse to prevent them from doing so, because it would violate her privacy rights over images of herself in general, even if this particular image is free. It's more complicated than that, but that's kindof the general idea. It ultimately applies to Wikipedia too, but is not something we normally have to be worried about for public figures in public photographs.  G M G  talk  17:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi GreenMeansGo - I appreciate the response but I'm still confused. I get that it's about warning outside users, but the style of warning just seems so restrictive that it ultimately makes me wary of using the image at all. I feel this defeats the purpose of the photographs which were taken with the express purpose of being used on sites like Wikipedia. I suppose this is just a result of me being someone who worries a lot, but warning labels of this type that don't specify what contexts are banned or allowed are just unhelpful in my view. Creative Commons is a concept I fully understand because it outlines where and when you can and can't use the image. This warning label is so vague it leaves me unclear as to when I can use the image, and yet I see it being applied to photo after photo. I suppose what I'm hoping for is some amendment to this label that makes it clearer when the photos can and can't be used, as opposed to the vague and unclear line "may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses". It's such a broad and unclear sentence that it could conceivably describe anything at all. I really think it needs to made clearer. Is it possible for this to be done somehow? I understand if not, but it's leaving me very uneasy about using these images, perhaps unduly, and I can't be the only one. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm... Well FriendlyDataNerdV2, part of the problem with trying to provide more specific guidance is that the guidance is super complicated and different depending on what jurisdiction your talking about. So limitations may change completely depending on what country to image originates from. Overall, I'd say for public people in public pictures anything that would run afoul of privacy rights are going to already run afoul of our policy on WP:BLP.
 * So using the example from before, you wouldn't want to put the image of that woman on the article for Bad breath, with a caption that says "Chronic bad breath can seriously harm family and work relationships, and leads to lower life satisfaction and self esteem." That would be a total no go but we really don't have to worry about the privacy aspects of it, because it's totally out of line with BLP and we should remove it anyway. So for the most part, for images, again, of public people in public places, you shouldn't have anything to worry about as far as Wikipedia goes, because BLP is more strict that the law anyway.   G M G  talk  18:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. Well, I appreciate the response, I guess this is just not an area I have much expertise in. Many thanks for the information FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Embedded movie allowed at C.I.D. (1956 film)?
Hi all, at C.I.D. (1956 film) someone embedded the full film into the article. While I think that's actually kind of a neat idea, editor raised a question about whether or not that was OK. According to the details at File:C.I.D. (1956).webm, the film appears to be in the public domain in India, but not in the US. So the question is: Can we embed it or not? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it should be nominated for deletion on Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On the basis that it is a questionable copyright issue, or that it is the entire film hogging up Commons resources? Other? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Questionable copyright. URAA violations are not OK on Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Commons community has rejected the idea of deletion things solely because of the URAA unless there is significant doubt about the copyright status of the work in question. This is a much higher burden of proof than the normal "precautionary deletions". From c:COM:URAA, A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. I've gone down this road before and it isn't worth it. Especially considering that video was uploaded by a Commons admin. --Majora (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have gotten stuff deleted in the past from Commons because it was copyrighted under URAA (not "alleged to be copyrighted under URAA"). See "If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle." Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends on who reviews the DR and if it attracts any further comments. There is a split in the admin corps at Commons as to the URAA and it can get rather heated very quickly. The community over there, with tepid (if rather ambigious) backing from the WMF, has decided that you can't use that as the sole reason. I've even asked WMF-Legal if they have any updated stance on the topic and they have said no. I can guarantee you that DR'ing this video will be a waste of time. Again, I've gone down this road before. Whether or not we want to use such content here is a different matter entirely and up for community debate. --Majora (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Is File:Avicii New Logo.png eligible for transfer to Wikimedia Commons
Is File:Avicii New Logo.png eligible for transfer to Wikipedia Commons or not Abote2 (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've tagged it for moving. ww2censor (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Image question about a situation I'm currently in
I just uploaded File:Myliobatis goodei, Southern eagle ray, underside.png and File:Myliobatis goodei.png, Southern eagle ray, topside.png (that extra .png in the file name was accidental, I requested for it to be renamed). Both here and here it makes it very clear that there are no rights reserved, and the images are in the public domain. I had mistakenly assumed that because Ezequiel Mabragana was the identifier, that was also the license holder. However, after uploading the image, I had realized that per the second URL that I had linked to, the license holder is "Unspecified." The reason I brought this up here is because considering the author is a mandatory part of uploading the file, I would think that I couldn't just remove it altogether. What would be the best thing to do now? Can I just remove the author parameter or would that be in violation of some policy? I looked at WP:FCSD, and I didn't really find anything that says something like this would be a criteria for speedy deletion. Also, I apologize if the answer is obvious - image copyright is one of the fields in Wikipedia that I really don't know as much about as I should.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 01:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The author is given as unspecified on that web site, but there is no reason to believe that the public domain grant is invalid. In this situation you can identify the author as the website or its publisher. Missing author should not require speedy deletion if it is clear that the thing is in public domain, as the author does not need acknowledgement. However we just need to prove it is public domain.  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this was very helpful to know for this time, and will also help me when uploading images like this in the future. I've now changed it to the correct author.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 02:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You should upload these files to Wikimedia Commons, not here. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , would it be best to just upload the same images to the Commons and then put on the old files?--SkyGazer 512  talk / contributions / subpages 14:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Yann (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Now just waiting for them to be deleted.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 14:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding an image from online obituary
I am editing the page for Beatrix Hamburg who has recently passed. I would like to upload an image of her to her wiki page but am unsure if an obituary photo in a online news article would be a violation of copyright laws. I have found many photos of her on sites like the New York Times and Washington Post. Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emryl (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Wikipedia generally prefers that all images be available under a free license or within the public domain because it's want to make sure the content it provides is available for anyone anywhere in the world to use as freely as possible without out have to worry about any restrictions; however, Wikipedia also recognizes that in some cases, particularly with respect to images, that it may be hard to do so it does make allowances similar to the US concept of fair use. Wikipedia does permit non-free content to be uploaded and used as long as it can shown to satisfy its non-free content use policy.
 * One of the generally accepted type of non-free use per item 10 of WP:NFCI are images of deceased individuals, and such images are generally allowed to be uploaded as long as (1) there's no reasonable expectation that a free equivalent can neither be found nor created per WP:NFCC and (2) they don't infringe upon the commercial opportunities of the copyright holder per WP:NFCC. So, if you believe you can find an image which satisfies relevant policy, you should be able to upload it under the copyright license Non-free biog pic and use the non-free use rationale Non-free use rationale biog.
 * One last thing about images of deceased individuals is that even though for obvious reasons a new image cannot be created, there still may be a reasonable expectation of finding an existing free or public domain image, or an copyrighted image which the copyright holder might not mind converting to a free license, etc. Sometimes contacting the copyright holder as explained in WP:PERMISSION can be fruitful and lead to an image which is not subject the restrictions placed on non-free content use. There's a tendency for some editors to assume that any image found online of a someone has just died is automatically going to considered acceptable non-free content, but that is not always the case. Non-free content should be considered sort of a last option when there's no reasonable reason to believe that free equivalent cannot be used instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Peachtree tshirt 2009.jpg
I don't think Wikipedia can keep this file. The photo can be licensed as "own work", but not the logo on the T-shirt itself, which seems to come from here. The main focus of the photo is the logo (without the logo all you'd have is a plain white T-shirt), so doesn't seem like de minimis, so this would need to be treated as a derivative work in my opinion with the photo being freely licensed, but the logo being treated as non-free content. Since there's no way in my opinion to justify this type of decorative non-free use given what's written about the official T-shirts in Peachtree Road Race, I think this needs to be deleted. The question is whether that needs to be done via WP:FFD or whether it can be tagged for speedy per WP:F9 or some other reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It's rather old for a speedy, which is usually for recent images. I've tagged it for FFD at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 April 23. ww2censor (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Cover image of Wookwan's Korean Temple Food Cookbook.jpg
Hi, I'm the one who owned copyright of this image, and I uploaded it. Can I ask why my image has been deleted? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icphub (talk • contribs) 22:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems the image was not uploaded here but was on the commons and deleted there because it was a book cover whose copyright is usually owned by the publisher or designer but you claimed it was your "own work". Is this c:File:Cover image of Wookwan's Korean Temple Food Cookbook.jpg the image in question? I presume it was a photo of this cookbook. By own work, did you design the book cover yourself for the publisher or did you just photograph it? In the latter case you are not the copyright holder you just took a photo of the book, but if you did design the book cover then you need to verify that with the OTRS Team. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your advice. Yes! I'm the design of this cookbook, and my company is the publisher. Let me try to contact the tean you mentioned, or just take a picture this book by myself. Thanks once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icphub (talk • contribs) 22:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You will have to be patient because the OTRS Team are backlogged about 60 days and taking another image of the book will still require verification you own the copyright. You could upload an image to a page on the publisher's website with a free copyright license statement but remember that in releasing an image under a free license, anyone can use the image for any purpose. BTW, you need to sign your posts by adding four tildes, like this ~, to your posts like this one but not to articles. ww2censor (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

File:United World Federalists license-plate topper.jpg
Uploaded as "own work" back in 2006. While I believe the uploader took the photo, physically owning something does not automatically mean there has been an official transfer of copyright ownership. So, the question is whether the design on the license plate topper should be treated as protected by copyright. It looks simple enough to be PD-logo, but I'm not sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

address to send my email
I want to send a form requesting permission to use with a free license CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Is the correct place to send the filled out form still at permissions@commonswikimedia.org ?

--Toploftical (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . If you mean that you want to give your permission for a file that you hold the copyright on to be released under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, then I believe you can send your email to either permissions-commons@wikimedia.org or permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Please see WP:CONSENT or c:COM:OTRS for some example emails you can use for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks --Toploftical (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

License agreement / License statement template
Hello, Wikipedia community!

I am new here and would much appreciate help regarding the uploading of images. I with a couple of friends am running a campaign to protect the river Vydrica in our country, Slovakia. In the process, we created some nice photos of nature which we would like to upload to Wikimedia Commons. I am uploading them for the team.

That means, in the file upload wizard (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard&withJS=MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js)

they fall under the category '''This is a free work. / This file was given to me by its owner.'''

To do it all correctly, I should provide a license statement / license agreement and send it to Wikimedia. It will be no problem to obtain these, but I did not find a template. Where can I find one? Should they be printed out and signed manually?

Many thanks, I am looking forward to enriching Wikipedia by our work!

Dalibor

--Larch150 (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * the procedure is found on the OTRS Team's page on the commons. Please upload them on the commons and not here. That way other language wikis can use the images too. It is not quite as easy as stating This is a free work. / This file was given to me by its owner, because that does not state a specific free license. We need copyright holder's verified permission as well the name of the photographer. It would be easier for each photographer to get their own wiki account and then upload their own images, then they don't need to submit their permissions for images you would upload. Besides which the OTRS team are backlogged about 60 days so permission verification is taking a long time. ww2censor (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Picture of an author from his relative's own collection
Hi, I am working on adding a photo of Harold Berson, a children's author who died in 1986, to the infobox on his Wikipedia page. The photo was sent to me for the purposes of adding to the page by the author's nephew. It is from the nephew's own family photo collection and was taken in the 1950s.

I assume I need to provide evidence of permission. Is a copy of my email thread with the nephew sufficient? Any guidance otherwise?

Wiltonj (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This is problematic. Phyaical possession of a copy of the photograph does not create any right to license it. Since the article subject died more than thirty years ago, and no free images are likely to be available, there is no problem with including a nonfree image -- in principle. However, WP:NFCC#4 (and in many cases fair use principles) requires that an nonfree image must have already been published under the authority of the copyright holder, which wouldn't be true of the image you want to upload. Your best bet is probably going to be to scan and upload a jacket/publicity photo from one of the author's books, or dig one out at archive.org, which has limited-access copies of many of those books. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo).  Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Files for discussion/2018 April 30
You are invited to join the discussion at. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)