![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2020 Jul-Dec. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I need to pick your brain again. I've just finished an article on Prenner and would like to use the following photographs, Prenner with parents or Prenner communion, Neznani storilec or Skok, Cmok in Jokica. Here's the link of Slovenian copyright The first one (with parents) was likely taken in 1911 or 1912 given that that is when they moved to Windischgraz (aka Slovenj Gradec) and the fact that Prenner is clearly younger in the image than they were in the 1915 communion photo. I can find diddly squat about the photographer, tried searches on Google, archive.org, Hathitrust, Slovenian Archives, Ministry of Culture, Slovene Digital Library, etc. What I am fairly sure of is that the town name changed around 1918 and the only images on the web for the photographer Ferd. Andreiz are from 1890-1915. [1] Since we know who the photographer is, but I cannot find dates for him, possibly we cannot use it. The communion photo, however has an unknown author and the description of the code says routine amateur photographs were never copyrighted and other photographs copyright lasted for 25 years. On the books, clearly both were published before 1978, so are they useable, or do I have to not use them as Prenner did not die until 1977? Any help you can give will be appreciated. SusunW ( talk) 20:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Finally here! Unfortunately, even the communion photo isn't an easy PD: the key points are "amateur" and "published". We can't guarantee the photo was taken by an amateur; it's clearly a posed photo, and it's not unheard of to hire professional photographers to take photos of major life events like this. Similarly, do we really know when it was first published? The description on the link just says it's from someone's collection, if this was just in a family archive, then it wasn't necessarily published at that time it was taken. Unless I am misunderstanding and you have information that it was included in a book? If it was published 1969 or earlier, it would be PD, but I'm getting the impression that this wasn't published until some biography, and all of those were written in 2001 or later, right? I may even have worse news. I'm not at all sure that the three images we currently have under
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ljuba_Prenner are properly public domain, for the same reasons. They're all from the same place, the
Digital Library of Slovenia, and are all marked "Rights: Copyright Not Evaluated", and have the same issues, I don't see proof they were actually published before 1970, or even 2001. So, I guess, if you want to look on the bright side, you could upload these the same way those were uploaded, and they wouldn't be deleted unless all those were too... but they could be all deleted together.
The Neznani Storilec cover should be fine under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-text (a book cover is flat, so it's an accurate photographic reproduction); we should probably crop it down to just the book, and remove the stone background. The SKOK, CMOK IN JOKICA cover, is, unfortunately, more than simple text, so probably protected until 70 years after author's death. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
pale globe-thistle above the Rhine |
Have a pic for all your pic work! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi, I don't know if I'm looking in the right place to check for copyright renewals on these portraits:
Hi GRuban, Good day. I have seen you adding a lot of images into the pages and I would like to do so in MMA fighters article and would like to seek you advice. I found out that certain MMA sites - such as MMAnytt do allow their image/videos to be reused. I am not sure how you do that, but would it be the right way if I download the video (interviews video to make sure the videos are produced by them) and capture a short of the video for the image and upload it to WikiCommon. If that is not the method you used, then pls advise. Thanks in advance. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia( talk) 09:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Let's take these one at a time.
Nice! Do add the {{LicenseReview}} tags, but I think you've basically got it. You'll get better and better with practice... and maybe even be able to help other people who come to you for advice! You don't have to ping me for further uploads unless you have specific questions. -- GRuban ( talk) 12:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
File:Cullen_Hoback.jpg. The "guy sought after for Wikipedia photos" has become the "seeker of Wikipedia photos".
Psiĥedelisto (
talk •
contribs) please always
ping! 05:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Hope all is well with you. Been a difficult month for me, but we are hanging in. I would like to use this photo of LaNada Means, published 20 November 1970. This copy says its an AP wire photo, but ran 2 days after the Examiner’s photo, which makes me think they took it from the San Francisco paper. Neither "Periodicals" January-December 1970 nor "Artwork" January-December 1970 show anything for the Examiner and the only hit for it in "Commercial Prints" January-December 1970 has nothing to do with Means. I also get no hits in any of them for AP Wirephotos, AP Wire photos, Associated Press having anything to do with Alcatraz or Means, or Hearst (Hearst corp owned the Examiner). I'd appreciate your thoughts, if you have time. If not, no worries. SusunW ( talk) 18:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you could clarify the status of the image licensing. The image was taken by an employee of this NRHP building and was posted on their Facebook page. The employee freely licensed it on Commons. Is this kosher? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 20:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not understanding how to find the Verses occasioned by death of Edward Weld. (ob. Dec.1761). The article Edward Weld (Senior) states in the last paragraph that he "received many tributes including eulogies in verse." Any idea how to find those eulogies? Atsme Talk 📧 01:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to add this image to this article, but the PD-US-not renewed template ends at 1963, and this film was in 1965 or 1966. What do I do? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 00:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, not related. I do think it's a press photo, not a frame from the film: it's pretty well lit, and the people in it are standing still as if they were posing, rather than as if they were caught in the middle of motion. Though that isn't proof, and I haven't seen the film, so I guess it is possible that it's a film frame. But I don't think it matters: in either case I'd go with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-not_renewed: "because it was published in the United States between 1925 and 1963 and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed." It is also better quality than any screenshot I could make from that film form the Internet Archive, try to pause that film somewhere, and you can see it's grainier, lower quality, and less well lit than that photo. Lighting isn't as important for movies as it is for still photos, or rather it's different - for movies, poor lighting adds to tension or ambiance (see film noir), and I'm guessing this is supposed to be a rather tense film. For press photos, clarity seems more important. -- GRuban ( talk) 00:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC).
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
Dear GRuban: This barnstar is long overdue! Thank you for your continual availability and willingness to help us copyright-ignorant editors improve the visual look of our articles. Thank you for your incredible patience as you explain exactly what needs to be done, and often go ahead and just do it for us! Your kindness makes Wikipedia a much nicer place to spend our free time. Thanks again! Yoninah ( talk) 22:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, I promoted your Miss and Mister Supranational hook to Prep 4. I just wanted to say that anyone who also clicks on Jenny Kim is going to see a pretty poor article. I tagged it for writing style and bare URLs. If you're inclined to fix it up before your hook hits the main page, all the better. Best, Yoninah ( talk) 13:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
On 7 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2channel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 4chan owner Hiroyuki Nishimura claims that 2channel, once "Japan's most popular online community", was stolen from him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2channel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, 2channel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
You once made a yellow picture not yellow, so now I am wondering if you can make this blue photograph not blue? It is the only image of her that I can find, and as it was published in 1982 will need to be loaded fair use. SusunW ( talk) 14:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
On 12 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Miss and Mister Supranational, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jenny Kim's victory in the 2017 Miss Supranational beauty pageant (finalists pictured) marked the first time that a contestant representing South Korea won a major international pageant? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Miss and Mister Supranational. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Miss and Mister Supranational), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 12:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I've just barely started working on this, but I am curious if her image here is usable? I know diddly squat about stamps, but it seems to me this photo is all over the web. SusunW ( talk) 20:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Stan Shebs agreed! So now book cover, stamp, whatever, fair use is fair use. Pick the one you want.-- GRuban ( talk) 01:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I found a photo from a 1993 concert performance, mailed it to a friend who is also pictured, and who remembered who took it, and now that person emailed that we can upload it on the Commons credited to his name. How do I do it? I have the pic and the email exchange. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
thanksgiving |
Unfortunately, the photographer hasn't responded yet. - Thank you for more miracles! - For Agnes Stavenhagen, could you perhaps find this pic? - Anna Tifu is probably too recent? I took a pic in the hall before they began. Enchanting playing, as a critic said. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Wow, you could read my mind, no? Thank you sooo much! Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I added a YouTube to her article that ends on a Bach encore, like for us! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
16 October memories -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I just added a pic to Sinfonietta (Poulenc). There's a photo much closer in time (1950), but with doubtful license. Could you please check? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a banned user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews in German, but music and scene. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi GRuban. Based on your experience at
Articles for Creation and because you have the
autopatrol permission, I have added you to the "New page reviewers
" user group for three months. Please check back at
WP:PERM if you would like to make it permanent. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. Before doing any new page patrols you need read the tutorial at
New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the
deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the
new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I keep forgetting how I'm supposed to check whether press photos have had their copyright renewed. Let's take The Caribbean Mystery (1945) as an example. I go to [21] and click on "text". Now, do I only have to click on 1973 (28 years) in the dropdown list of years on the left? Then I only have 14 entries to check instead of that humongous list?
I would now like to upload this studio portrait. How in the world would I check if it's been renewed? I don't even know the copyright date, but it looks as though it was photographed in the 1940s.
Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 17:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
If a film is copyright 1938, and the copyright was renewed in 1965, the copyright law has extended the renewal for another 95 years?
But would a film poster be included in that copyright renewal? Yoninah ( talk) 01:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wondering why this image is licensed as a public-domain screenshot when the film copyright was renewed in the 1970s? Yoninah ( talk) 23:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
This seems to be a publicity photo, and there are notes of what appears on front and back. None seems to indicate it has any copyright markings. I find nothing on the web for "Glamor Pix" (note no U on the photo), nor anything on the copyright.gov website. So, 1) can we take the word of the library about what is on it? and 2) would it be worth it to e-mail and ask more questions? (My guess is it was taken in the 1950s because that's when she shifted from nursing to radio, and based on various photos here.) This book was copyrighted in 1957, but I find nothing that indicates it was renewed on copyright.gov, nor any hits for Alma John, also checked Vessels and Vessells, or Lucille Arcola Chambers or any variation of her name. So, if I cannot use the first picture, what about photos from the book? As always, I appreciate you and am grateful for your help. SusunW ( talk) 21:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi George I'm wondering if you might help Glenn Gass with a photo or two. He's a terrific educator and he's just trying to get his photo on to his page but is having a tough time, and you are one of the rare people in Wiki who can make things happen.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I haven't even started the article, but this one brings me back around to something that happened in the GA review I did for Gloria Swanson I was confused about lobby posters for movies. Then I found this when searching for info on the first black woman DJ in the US. To my eye it is advertising, which is the same category I would put on a movie poster or lobby card, but are the rules different for those? Are they considered art? Or just publicity? How would one know if they were copyrighted, as no one is gonna write on the face of the object, so is it typically marked on the back somehow? I don't even know where to start on researching this so I hope you can help. SusunW ( talk) 19:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I just made the things as suggested by you. Kindly see if they are in order. Thanks and Regards RAJIVVASUDEV ( talk) 17:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can I upload this playbill cover? I don't see any copyright notice. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 20:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
On 4 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Honey Badger (men's rights), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that women called Honey Badgers are among the most prominent men's rights activists? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Honey Badger (men's rights). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Honey Badger (men's rights)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Binibining Pilipinas 2008, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patricia Fernandez.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
How are you doing? I did upload the picture from that book that USC provided. However, Yoninah said that I needed to edit the upload the way that you told me. However, I am unsure of what they mean! Is there any way you can take a look at my upload to see what I did wrong. I had permission to upload it on Wikipedia, and they gave me the image from the book itself. Thank you for your time. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 20:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay. So I ended up removing the picture because it appears that it may in fact be copyrighted. The picture they provided me was a research scan. They specifically mentioned that it was copyrighted in the email they sent me, but I was under the impression that I could use it if I attributed it to them because of a conversation I had with the librarian the next day. It turns out that the image they want me to use has a large watermark on the upper right corner. I'm not sure if we can use it on Wikipedia though. It's pretty big and it doesn't look good. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 19:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
(in which Bridgeman Art Library sued the Corel Corporation for copyright infringement for distributing copies of digital reproductions of public domain paintings sourced from Bridgeman on a CD-ROM) established that "a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits lacks originality. That is not to say that such a feat is trivial, simply not original." As a result, reproductions of works that have fallen into the public domain cannot attract any new copyright in the United States.
Ok, this is a "to whom it may concern", and we're certainly concerned, so it's to us.
. It was mailed as a
PDF, which isn't a picture format as such (it can be, but in this case it's text, you can copy and paste from it, for example.)
To Whom It May Concern: The South Caroliniana Library grants non-exclusive permission to use the following digital file to illustrate the Wikipedia entry regarding the Cleveland School Fire. • Digital image of the Cleveland School in Camden, S.C., originally printed in The Terrible Cleveland Fire, Its Victims and Survivors by John Oliver Moseley, 1923. This permission does not include the right to use the material in any printed materials, or in any additional digital work, or in any advertisement, promotion or marketing for the work other than as expressly noted above. The Library cannot guarantee that there may not be additional permissions required and cannot be held liable for such. The credit line should read “Courtesy of the South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.” Credits should appear in close proximity to the image or properly cited in a special section devoted to credits. Should you decide to reference the text of the volume in the Wikipedia entry, citations of quoted materials and facsimiles from published materials must include the name of the source as part of the credit line. For example, “From The Terrible Cleveland Fire, Its Victims and Survivors by John Oliver Moseley, 1923, South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.”
So. Three important points:
-- GRuban ( talk) 23:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Now other questions:
Hello. I just noticed you added an image on Tarantella (ballet). However, the one you added is from a completely different ballet under the same title, so I removed it. I do want to include an image, just not sure how the fair use thing works. Corachow ( talk) 07:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black List (survey), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nick Wechsler.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm coming across a number of these kinescope screenshots from 1950s American television programs, and I wonder if they're being correctly licensed. The uploader is alternately labeling them "fair use" and "public domain". Examples:
Hi GRuban: In response to your note: as a user, I fact-tracked the reference. It led me to an unrelated page. As an editor, I removed the link. It isn't the user's job, I think you would agree, to go hunting through moribund links. Common sense dictates that if the referenced biographical data is relevant and important, it should be easily and credibly documented. That is hardly the case here. I am agnostic on the material; however, I feel firmly that biographical material which, for the immediate time being, appears to be at best notional (though, possibly, factual), not be included, particularly so high in the biographical matter of a recognizable figure. Jdash30 ( talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi -- Following up on the recent kinescope discussion, I'd appreciate your input on whether File:The Green Pastures (Hallmark, 1957).jpg is within copyright protection. It is advertising for a TV show published in newspapers in 1957. As advertising content not created by the newspaper, it is not something over which the newspaper claims copyright. Further, the advertising contains no copyright notice. Thoughts? Cbl62 ( talk) 07:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Copyright Barnstar | |
For helping me with my DYK nomination, I award you this. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 23:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Czech Miss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vysočina.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
So I'm waking you up because I need your help. See
Belle Reve Farm. It needs to be expanded. I want to do this by the book because if I don't, I will probably be accused of a COI by my detractors. I prefer to be on the safe side because I do care, and I don't want anyone to form the wrong impression of me over something this trivial when all I'm interested in doing is helping to expand a pretty cool article - at least "cool" from the perspectives of those interested in that particular subject. (Most of the young people today don't even know Captain Kirk). Are you that young?
Atsme
💬
📧 19:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Atsme: So, after browsing around on the web a bit, I found
It's publically commentable, so if you want to correct something, or draw attention to something, please do. As best I can tell, the most useful bit for the article should be the part at 00:23:53 where Shatner says "This is my wife Marcy she's my partner ... in this business. She mostly charms the people who buy." Then there is 08:05 where it says "Bill and his lovely wife Marcie at their Belle Reve Farm in Lexington, Ky." confirms they had it, but that part we've got lots of other sources for. Then we can cite the whole video in general to say that the Shatners used their farm to breed, raise, train, and sell horses. I'll need your expert help for that - is that pretty much standard all included in selling horses, or are there farms that do the breeding but don't raise, or raising without breeding or selling, or training but not breeding, or are there other parts that should be mentioned? -- GRuban ( talk) 14:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Belle Reve is more like the Trump name (forgive me for that analogy but celebrities consider their names as assets); therefore, now that you've uncovered (with your excellent research ability) the other Belle Reve facilities, we may need an entirely different approach. Based on what you've uncovered so far, I'm wondering if maybe we should consider a spin-off for William Shatner (equestrian), and William Shatner (marriages) or should that be a list? FBDB Atsme 💬 📧 20:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I promoted your hook to an image slot. Would you like to start a stub for Nabil Ahmad, so he can be linked in the caption? Otherwise we don't usually include names that do not have a Wikipedia page. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 13:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
On 6 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article MeleTOP, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Neelofa announced live on air that she was leaving talk show MeleTOP, it was a surprise to her co-host of eight years (both pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MeleTOP. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, MeleTOP), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I want this photo (last one in the series). The copyright mark is here but it's kinda weird. I cannot tell what/who has copyrighted it. So, I searched 1932-1933 here and find nothing for The Entre Nous, Howard College, Loee Salter, A. S. Barger for either 1932 or 1933. Checking renewals in 1960 and 1961 I also find nothing. Am I good to go? SusunW ( talk) 23:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
look! - ever so proud of the little article which is my DYK 1500 and relates to DYK 1 - by sheer coincidence! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
look today for bright memories - thank you so much for adding a pic to the composer! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Do you think you might find a photo of this one? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Gerda Arendt: Hermann Schey? I think this is him, though it calls him Herman Schey? -- GRuban ( talk) 16:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You remind me of my time at a New York publishing company (I was the West Coast editor) where they hired a special advisor to answer all the editors' math questions. They knew it would take us too much time to figure it out ourselves, so we would just call up and say, "Barry, if they sold this-and-this much last year as opposed to this year, what would be the percentage increase?" And Barry always gave the answer off the top of his head. For us editors here at Wikipedia who don't know anything about image licensing, you're a godsend! Thanks for being so helpful. Yoninah ( talk) 21:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I want this, really, really, really badly. It was published 26 Jan 1966 without a notice and says it is an AP Wirephoto. No copyright notice on the masthead or publishing data. (I checked every page of the paper, this is the only notice.) Nothing in periodicals for The Progress-Index either. Checked AP Wirephoto, Wirephoto, and Evelyn Butts in artwork. Am I good for "no notice"? SusunW ( talk) 21:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
And while you are pondering that, I'd also like this photo of Ceola Wallace. But, I'm kind of confused about the credit. Does it mean it belongs to Ebony Magazine? Should I look there to try to find it published in 1964? It may have to be fair use, but then I'd need to prove she is dead, right? SusunW ( talk) 22:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Okay, it is in Ebony and she's not alive. SusunW ( talk) 22:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Ebony. Vol. 19, no. 11, Sept. 1964. Type of Work: Serial Registration Number / Date: RE0000579560 / 1992-03-30 Renewal registration for: B00000167344 / 1964-08-25 Title: Ebony. Vol. 19, no. 11, Sept. 1964. Copyright Claimant: Johnson Publishing Company, Inc. (PCW) Variant title: Ebony Names: Johnson Publishing Company, Inc.
This image is from 1987 from The Independent. The subject just died. Can it be uploaded as fair use? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 02:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Can you use your magic and make this picture not brown? Photo of Sayler is on page 4; publishing data on 8; I see nothing that indicates copyright so I think it can be uploaded as {{PD-US-no notice}} Thank you so much. SusunW ( talk) 20:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I wanna use this. The Masthead shows a copyright notice for vol 155 (CLV), No. 65 March 6, 1949. The Catalogue confirms the 1949 copyright of this issue was filed as B180318. And I find no renewals 1978 to present on that number at copyright.gov. Per UPenn Renewals, January-June 1976 are on 367-389 of first volume but I see no Boston anything, skips from Bluebook Magazine to Boy Commandos. The July-December 1976 are on 393-424 of second volume but again no Boston, skips from Blue Ribbon Comics to Boy Commandos. Checking 1977 Renewals, January-June are on / 416-447 of first volume but again it skips from Blue Book Magazine to Boy Commandos and July-December are on 431-495 of second volume but it skips from Blue book Magazine to Boy's Life. No listing of any renewals for Boston Globe, Boston Sunday Globe, etc. Am I good to go? SusunW ( talk) 22:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Opposite problem to Evelyn Butts, the published image is larger than the better photo, but clearly was cropped from it. Neither masthead nor publishing data indicate copyright, nor does a search of "Richmond" or Times-Dispatch return any registration for 1948 or 1949. Can I use the better cropped image? SusunW ( talk) 22:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Washington, capital city, 1879-1950. Vol. 2. By Constance McLaughlin Green. Type of Work: Text Registration Number / Date: RE0000507022 / 1991-09-09 Renewal registration for: A00000668085 / 1963-12-30 Title: Washington, capital city, 1879-1950. Vol. 2. By Constance McLaughlin Green. Copyright Claimant: Lois Green Carr & Donald Ross Green (C) Variant title: Washington, capital city, 1879-1950 Names: Green, Constance McLaughlin Carr, Lois Green Green, Donald Ross
That said, though, there are a number of photos of her at the Library of Congress that are marked "no known copyright restrictions" (which means public domain), such as https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/97500102/ https://www.loc.gov/item/93516449/ and so forth. Use those! -- GRuban ( talk) 15:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Sharecropper.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. DMacks ( talk) 04:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I see several people now use me for a general reference on free images for Wikipedia, and how difficult it is. Let me let you in on a very current instance of how it works for me. Here is our article Fionnghuala O'Reilly, about the first black Miss Ireland Universe, NASA datanaut (rocket scientist?), and generally impressive person. When I saw it, it didn't have an image.
And this is one of the good ones, when the article subject both wrote back, and agreed, even if it did take four months; the majority of people I write like this don't write back at all, and a good number of those who do write back don't agree. This is just in case any web page readers think this sort of thing is only hard for them. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
-- GRuban ( talk) 13:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Ian had asked if I couldn't find some photos of women protesting for poll tax abolition. The only one I found was marked 1963-1966 from Texas, but no clues where or if it might have been published. Searches in newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, and the Texas portal were moot. Then yesterday, I was working on another article and found this. The girl with the square around her head is the subject of my bio but the apron she has on says "Abolish the poll tax". The image totally sucks. identifying info: "Southern Delegates at American Peace Mobilization in Chicago. [Front row, left to right: Arthur Price, Nashville, Tenn., Valencia Hall, Birmingham, Ala, Blanche Gelders, age 14, Birmingham, Waring Averey, Washington D. C. Back row, left to right: Mary Frances Harris Green Pond, Ala., Anna May Mitchell, Lewsiburgh, Ala., Margaret Gelders, Birmingham, Elinor Eaves, Birmingham, Marjorie Haldsamback?, Birmingham, Maple Duncan, Birmingham. ~ Daily Worker Photo]" Beneath it says, "The Daily Worker photographer made this shot at the American Peace Mobilization meeting in Chicago in September 1940". My snooping tells me the LOC has this paper, but I keep getting, "We're experiencing technical difficulties. Try again later." Then I found this access from Villanova, but of course I cannot access it. The Catalog doesn't indicate the paper was copyrighted 1940-1941. Any chance you can help me find the photo? SusunW ( talk) 14:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
That is wonderful. Atsme, what did you use for this cleanup? -- GRuban ( talk) 23:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Nabil Ahmad at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Yoninah (
talk) 11:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi GRuban, I've reverted your revert. I don't wish to be rude, but there was not a single reliable source for anything on that article. Per WP:BLP, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." Praxidicae clearly challenged the content by removing the content and placing the redirect, thus restoring it would be inappropriate. Best wishes, please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Waggie ( talk) 19:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello GRuban,
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | DannyS712 bot III ( talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Rosguill ( talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 ( talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany ( talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Mccapra ( talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Hughesdarren ( talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Utopes ( talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Beethoven in 1803 |
---|
The birthday display! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, a question came up about a copyright renewal. If the copyright for a 1932 film was renewed in 1959, does that mean that the copyright will expire in 2027? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 12:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
On 18 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nabil Ahmad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nabil Ahmad (pictured) became a comedian after a friend signed him up for a reality show as a prank? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nabil Ahmad. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Nabil Ahmad), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Wug· a·po·des 00:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2020 Jul-Dec. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I need to pick your brain again. I've just finished an article on Prenner and would like to use the following photographs, Prenner with parents or Prenner communion, Neznani storilec or Skok, Cmok in Jokica. Here's the link of Slovenian copyright The first one (with parents) was likely taken in 1911 or 1912 given that that is when they moved to Windischgraz (aka Slovenj Gradec) and the fact that Prenner is clearly younger in the image than they were in the 1915 communion photo. I can find diddly squat about the photographer, tried searches on Google, archive.org, Hathitrust, Slovenian Archives, Ministry of Culture, Slovene Digital Library, etc. What I am fairly sure of is that the town name changed around 1918 and the only images on the web for the photographer Ferd. Andreiz are from 1890-1915. [1] Since we know who the photographer is, but I cannot find dates for him, possibly we cannot use it. The communion photo, however has an unknown author and the description of the code says routine amateur photographs were never copyrighted and other photographs copyright lasted for 25 years. On the books, clearly both were published before 1978, so are they useable, or do I have to not use them as Prenner did not die until 1977? Any help you can give will be appreciated. SusunW ( talk) 20:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Finally here! Unfortunately, even the communion photo isn't an easy PD: the key points are "amateur" and "published". We can't guarantee the photo was taken by an amateur; it's clearly a posed photo, and it's not unheard of to hire professional photographers to take photos of major life events like this. Similarly, do we really know when it was first published? The description on the link just says it's from someone's collection, if this was just in a family archive, then it wasn't necessarily published at that time it was taken. Unless I am misunderstanding and you have information that it was included in a book? If it was published 1969 or earlier, it would be PD, but I'm getting the impression that this wasn't published until some biography, and all of those were written in 2001 or later, right? I may even have worse news. I'm not at all sure that the three images we currently have under
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ljuba_Prenner are properly public domain, for the same reasons. They're all from the same place, the
Digital Library of Slovenia, and are all marked "Rights: Copyright Not Evaluated", and have the same issues, I don't see proof they were actually published before 1970, or even 2001. So, I guess, if you want to look on the bright side, you could upload these the same way those were uploaded, and they wouldn't be deleted unless all those were too... but they could be all deleted together.
The Neznani Storilec cover should be fine under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-text (a book cover is flat, so it's an accurate photographic reproduction); we should probably crop it down to just the book, and remove the stone background. The SKOK, CMOK IN JOKICA cover, is, unfortunately, more than simple text, so probably protected until 70 years after author's death. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
pale globe-thistle above the Rhine |
Have a pic for all your pic work! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi, I don't know if I'm looking in the right place to check for copyright renewals on these portraits:
Hi GRuban, Good day. I have seen you adding a lot of images into the pages and I would like to do so in MMA fighters article and would like to seek you advice. I found out that certain MMA sites - such as MMAnytt do allow their image/videos to be reused. I am not sure how you do that, but would it be the right way if I download the video (interviews video to make sure the videos are produced by them) and capture a short of the video for the image and upload it to WikiCommon. If that is not the method you used, then pls advise. Thanks in advance. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia( talk) 09:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Let's take these one at a time.
Nice! Do add the {{LicenseReview}} tags, but I think you've basically got it. You'll get better and better with practice... and maybe even be able to help other people who come to you for advice! You don't have to ping me for further uploads unless you have specific questions. -- GRuban ( talk) 12:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
File:Cullen_Hoback.jpg. The "guy sought after for Wikipedia photos" has become the "seeker of Wikipedia photos".
Psiĥedelisto (
talk •
contribs) please always
ping! 05:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Hope all is well with you. Been a difficult month for me, but we are hanging in. I would like to use this photo of LaNada Means, published 20 November 1970. This copy says its an AP wire photo, but ran 2 days after the Examiner’s photo, which makes me think they took it from the San Francisco paper. Neither "Periodicals" January-December 1970 nor "Artwork" January-December 1970 show anything for the Examiner and the only hit for it in "Commercial Prints" January-December 1970 has nothing to do with Means. I also get no hits in any of them for AP Wirephotos, AP Wire photos, Associated Press having anything to do with Alcatraz or Means, or Hearst (Hearst corp owned the Examiner). I'd appreciate your thoughts, if you have time. If not, no worries. SusunW ( talk) 18:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you could clarify the status of the image licensing. The image was taken by an employee of this NRHP building and was posted on their Facebook page. The employee freely licensed it on Commons. Is this kosher? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 20:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not understanding how to find the Verses occasioned by death of Edward Weld. (ob. Dec.1761). The article Edward Weld (Senior) states in the last paragraph that he "received many tributes including eulogies in verse." Any idea how to find those eulogies? Atsme Talk 📧 01:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to add this image to this article, but the PD-US-not renewed template ends at 1963, and this film was in 1965 or 1966. What do I do? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 00:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, not related. I do think it's a press photo, not a frame from the film: it's pretty well lit, and the people in it are standing still as if they were posing, rather than as if they were caught in the middle of motion. Though that isn't proof, and I haven't seen the film, so I guess it is possible that it's a film frame. But I don't think it matters: in either case I'd go with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-not_renewed: "because it was published in the United States between 1925 and 1963 and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed." It is also better quality than any screenshot I could make from that film form the Internet Archive, try to pause that film somewhere, and you can see it's grainier, lower quality, and less well lit than that photo. Lighting isn't as important for movies as it is for still photos, or rather it's different - for movies, poor lighting adds to tension or ambiance (see film noir), and I'm guessing this is supposed to be a rather tense film. For press photos, clarity seems more important. -- GRuban ( talk) 00:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC).
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
Dear GRuban: This barnstar is long overdue! Thank you for your continual availability and willingness to help us copyright-ignorant editors improve the visual look of our articles. Thank you for your incredible patience as you explain exactly what needs to be done, and often go ahead and just do it for us! Your kindness makes Wikipedia a much nicer place to spend our free time. Thanks again! Yoninah ( talk) 22:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, I promoted your Miss and Mister Supranational hook to Prep 4. I just wanted to say that anyone who also clicks on Jenny Kim is going to see a pretty poor article. I tagged it for writing style and bare URLs. If you're inclined to fix it up before your hook hits the main page, all the better. Best, Yoninah ( talk) 13:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
On 7 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2channel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 4chan owner Hiroyuki Nishimura claims that 2channel, once "Japan's most popular online community", was stolen from him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2channel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, 2channel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
You once made a yellow picture not yellow, so now I am wondering if you can make this blue photograph not blue? It is the only image of her that I can find, and as it was published in 1982 will need to be loaded fair use. SusunW ( talk) 14:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
On 12 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Miss and Mister Supranational, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jenny Kim's victory in the 2017 Miss Supranational beauty pageant (finalists pictured) marked the first time that a contestant representing South Korea won a major international pageant? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Miss and Mister Supranational. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Miss and Mister Supranational), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 12:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I've just barely started working on this, but I am curious if her image here is usable? I know diddly squat about stamps, but it seems to me this photo is all over the web. SusunW ( talk) 20:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Stan Shebs agreed! So now book cover, stamp, whatever, fair use is fair use. Pick the one you want.-- GRuban ( talk) 01:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I found a photo from a 1993 concert performance, mailed it to a friend who is also pictured, and who remembered who took it, and now that person emailed that we can upload it on the Commons credited to his name. How do I do it? I have the pic and the email exchange. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
thanksgiving |
Unfortunately, the photographer hasn't responded yet. - Thank you for more miracles! - For Agnes Stavenhagen, could you perhaps find this pic? - Anna Tifu is probably too recent? I took a pic in the hall before they began. Enchanting playing, as a critic said. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Wow, you could read my mind, no? Thank you sooo much! Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I added a YouTube to her article that ends on a Bach encore, like for us! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
16 October memories -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I just added a pic to Sinfonietta (Poulenc). There's a photo much closer in time (1950), but with doubtful license. Could you please check? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a banned user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews in German, but music and scene. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi GRuban. Based on your experience at
Articles for Creation and because you have the
autopatrol permission, I have added you to the "New page reviewers
" user group for three months. Please check back at
WP:PERM if you would like to make it permanent. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. Before doing any new page patrols you need read the tutorial at
New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the
deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the
new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I keep forgetting how I'm supposed to check whether press photos have had their copyright renewed. Let's take The Caribbean Mystery (1945) as an example. I go to [21] and click on "text". Now, do I only have to click on 1973 (28 years) in the dropdown list of years on the left? Then I only have 14 entries to check instead of that humongous list?
I would now like to upload this studio portrait. How in the world would I check if it's been renewed? I don't even know the copyright date, but it looks as though it was photographed in the 1940s.
Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 17:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
If a film is copyright 1938, and the copyright was renewed in 1965, the copyright law has extended the renewal for another 95 years?
But would a film poster be included in that copyright renewal? Yoninah ( talk) 01:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wondering why this image is licensed as a public-domain screenshot when the film copyright was renewed in the 1970s? Yoninah ( talk) 23:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
This seems to be a publicity photo, and there are notes of what appears on front and back. None seems to indicate it has any copyright markings. I find nothing on the web for "Glamor Pix" (note no U on the photo), nor anything on the copyright.gov website. So, 1) can we take the word of the library about what is on it? and 2) would it be worth it to e-mail and ask more questions? (My guess is it was taken in the 1950s because that's when she shifted from nursing to radio, and based on various photos here.) This book was copyrighted in 1957, but I find nothing that indicates it was renewed on copyright.gov, nor any hits for Alma John, also checked Vessels and Vessells, or Lucille Arcola Chambers or any variation of her name. So, if I cannot use the first picture, what about photos from the book? As always, I appreciate you and am grateful for your help. SusunW ( talk) 21:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi George I'm wondering if you might help Glenn Gass with a photo or two. He's a terrific educator and he's just trying to get his photo on to his page but is having a tough time, and you are one of the rare people in Wiki who can make things happen.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I haven't even started the article, but this one brings me back around to something that happened in the GA review I did for Gloria Swanson I was confused about lobby posters for movies. Then I found this when searching for info on the first black woman DJ in the US. To my eye it is advertising, which is the same category I would put on a movie poster or lobby card, but are the rules different for those? Are they considered art? Or just publicity? How would one know if they were copyrighted, as no one is gonna write on the face of the object, so is it typically marked on the back somehow? I don't even know where to start on researching this so I hope you can help. SusunW ( talk) 19:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I just made the things as suggested by you. Kindly see if they are in order. Thanks and Regards RAJIVVASUDEV ( talk) 17:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can I upload this playbill cover? I don't see any copyright notice. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 20:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
On 4 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Honey Badger (men's rights), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that women called Honey Badgers are among the most prominent men's rights activists? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Honey Badger (men's rights). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Honey Badger (men's rights)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Binibining Pilipinas 2008, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patricia Fernandez.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
How are you doing? I did upload the picture from that book that USC provided. However, Yoninah said that I needed to edit the upload the way that you told me. However, I am unsure of what they mean! Is there any way you can take a look at my upload to see what I did wrong. I had permission to upload it on Wikipedia, and they gave me the image from the book itself. Thank you for your time. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 20:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay. So I ended up removing the picture because it appears that it may in fact be copyrighted. The picture they provided me was a research scan. They specifically mentioned that it was copyrighted in the email they sent me, but I was under the impression that I could use it if I attributed it to them because of a conversation I had with the librarian the next day. It turns out that the image they want me to use has a large watermark on the upper right corner. I'm not sure if we can use it on Wikipedia though. It's pretty big and it doesn't look good. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 19:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
(in which Bridgeman Art Library sued the Corel Corporation for copyright infringement for distributing copies of digital reproductions of public domain paintings sourced from Bridgeman on a CD-ROM) established that "a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits lacks originality. That is not to say that such a feat is trivial, simply not original." As a result, reproductions of works that have fallen into the public domain cannot attract any new copyright in the United States.
Ok, this is a "to whom it may concern", and we're certainly concerned, so it's to us.
. It was mailed as a
PDF, which isn't a picture format as such (it can be, but in this case it's text, you can copy and paste from it, for example.)
To Whom It May Concern: The South Caroliniana Library grants non-exclusive permission to use the following digital file to illustrate the Wikipedia entry regarding the Cleveland School Fire. • Digital image of the Cleveland School in Camden, S.C., originally printed in The Terrible Cleveland Fire, Its Victims and Survivors by John Oliver Moseley, 1923. This permission does not include the right to use the material in any printed materials, or in any additional digital work, or in any advertisement, promotion or marketing for the work other than as expressly noted above. The Library cannot guarantee that there may not be additional permissions required and cannot be held liable for such. The credit line should read “Courtesy of the South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.” Credits should appear in close proximity to the image or properly cited in a special section devoted to credits. Should you decide to reference the text of the volume in the Wikipedia entry, citations of quoted materials and facsimiles from published materials must include the name of the source as part of the credit line. For example, “From The Terrible Cleveland Fire, Its Victims and Survivors by John Oliver Moseley, 1923, South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.”
So. Three important points:
-- GRuban ( talk) 23:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Now other questions:
Hello. I just noticed you added an image on Tarantella (ballet). However, the one you added is from a completely different ballet under the same title, so I removed it. I do want to include an image, just not sure how the fair use thing works. Corachow ( talk) 07:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black List (survey), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nick Wechsler.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm coming across a number of these kinescope screenshots from 1950s American television programs, and I wonder if they're being correctly licensed. The uploader is alternately labeling them "fair use" and "public domain". Examples:
Hi GRuban: In response to your note: as a user, I fact-tracked the reference. It led me to an unrelated page. As an editor, I removed the link. It isn't the user's job, I think you would agree, to go hunting through moribund links. Common sense dictates that if the referenced biographical data is relevant and important, it should be easily and credibly documented. That is hardly the case here. I am agnostic on the material; however, I feel firmly that biographical material which, for the immediate time being, appears to be at best notional (though, possibly, factual), not be included, particularly so high in the biographical matter of a recognizable figure. Jdash30 ( talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi -- Following up on the recent kinescope discussion, I'd appreciate your input on whether File:The Green Pastures (Hallmark, 1957).jpg is within copyright protection. It is advertising for a TV show published in newspapers in 1957. As advertising content not created by the newspaper, it is not something over which the newspaper claims copyright. Further, the advertising contains no copyright notice. Thoughts? Cbl62 ( talk) 07:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Copyright Barnstar | |
For helping me with my DYK nomination, I award you this. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 23:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Czech Miss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vysočina.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
So I'm waking you up because I need your help. See
Belle Reve Farm. It needs to be expanded. I want to do this by the book because if I don't, I will probably be accused of a COI by my detractors. I prefer to be on the safe side because I do care, and I don't want anyone to form the wrong impression of me over something this trivial when all I'm interested in doing is helping to expand a pretty cool article - at least "cool" from the perspectives of those interested in that particular subject. (Most of the young people today don't even know Captain Kirk). Are you that young?
Atsme
💬
📧 19:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Atsme: So, after browsing around on the web a bit, I found
It's publically commentable, so if you want to correct something, or draw attention to something, please do. As best I can tell, the most useful bit for the article should be the part at 00:23:53 where Shatner says "This is my wife Marcy she's my partner ... in this business. She mostly charms the people who buy." Then there is 08:05 where it says "Bill and his lovely wife Marcie at their Belle Reve Farm in Lexington, Ky." confirms they had it, but that part we've got lots of other sources for. Then we can cite the whole video in general to say that the Shatners used their farm to breed, raise, train, and sell horses. I'll need your expert help for that - is that pretty much standard all included in selling horses, or are there farms that do the breeding but don't raise, or raising without breeding or selling, or training but not breeding, or are there other parts that should be mentioned? -- GRuban ( talk) 14:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Belle Reve is more like the Trump name (forgive me for that analogy but celebrities consider their names as assets); therefore, now that you've uncovered (with your excellent research ability) the other Belle Reve facilities, we may need an entirely different approach. Based on what you've uncovered so far, I'm wondering if maybe we should consider a spin-off for William Shatner (equestrian), and William Shatner (marriages) or should that be a list? FBDB Atsme 💬 📧 20:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I promoted your hook to an image slot. Would you like to start a stub for Nabil Ahmad, so he can be linked in the caption? Otherwise we don't usually include names that do not have a Wikipedia page. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 13:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
On 6 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article MeleTOP, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Neelofa announced live on air that she was leaving talk show MeleTOP, it was a surprise to her co-host of eight years (both pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MeleTOP. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, MeleTOP), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I want this photo (last one in the series). The copyright mark is here but it's kinda weird. I cannot tell what/who has copyrighted it. So, I searched 1932-1933 here and find nothing for The Entre Nous, Howard College, Loee Salter, A. S. Barger for either 1932 or 1933. Checking renewals in 1960 and 1961 I also find nothing. Am I good to go? SusunW ( talk) 23:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
look! - ever so proud of the little article which is my DYK 1500 and relates to DYK 1 - by sheer coincidence! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
look today for bright memories - thank you so much for adding a pic to the composer! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Do you think you might find a photo of this one? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Gerda Arendt: Hermann Schey? I think this is him, though it calls him Herman Schey? -- GRuban ( talk) 16:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You remind me of my time at a New York publishing company (I was the West Coast editor) where they hired a special advisor to answer all the editors' math questions. They knew it would take us too much time to figure it out ourselves, so we would just call up and say, "Barry, if they sold this-and-this much last year as opposed to this year, what would be the percentage increase?" And Barry always gave the answer off the top of his head. For us editors here at Wikipedia who don't know anything about image licensing, you're a godsend! Thanks for being so helpful. Yoninah ( talk) 21:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I want this, really, really, really badly. It was published 26 Jan 1966 without a notice and says it is an AP Wirephoto. No copyright notice on the masthead or publishing data. (I checked every page of the paper, this is the only notice.) Nothing in periodicals for The Progress-Index either. Checked AP Wirephoto, Wirephoto, and Evelyn Butts in artwork. Am I good for "no notice"? SusunW ( talk) 21:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
And while you are pondering that, I'd also like this photo of Ceola Wallace. But, I'm kind of confused about the credit. Does it mean it belongs to Ebony Magazine? Should I look there to try to find it published in 1964? It may have to be fair use, but then I'd need to prove she is dead, right? SusunW ( talk) 22:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Okay, it is in Ebony and she's not alive. SusunW ( talk) 22:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Ebony. Vol. 19, no. 11, Sept. 1964. Type of Work: Serial Registration Number / Date: RE0000579560 / 1992-03-30 Renewal registration for: B00000167344 / 1964-08-25 Title: Ebony. Vol. 19, no. 11, Sept. 1964. Copyright Claimant: Johnson Publishing Company, Inc. (PCW) Variant title: Ebony Names: Johnson Publishing Company, Inc.
This image is from 1987 from The Independent. The subject just died. Can it be uploaded as fair use? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 02:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Can you use your magic and make this picture not brown? Photo of Sayler is on page 4; publishing data on 8; I see nothing that indicates copyright so I think it can be uploaded as {{PD-US-no notice}} Thank you so much. SusunW ( talk) 20:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I wanna use this. The Masthead shows a copyright notice for vol 155 (CLV), No. 65 March 6, 1949. The Catalogue confirms the 1949 copyright of this issue was filed as B180318. And I find no renewals 1978 to present on that number at copyright.gov. Per UPenn Renewals, January-June 1976 are on 367-389 of first volume but I see no Boston anything, skips from Bluebook Magazine to Boy Commandos. The July-December 1976 are on 393-424 of second volume but again no Boston, skips from Blue Ribbon Comics to Boy Commandos. Checking 1977 Renewals, January-June are on / 416-447 of first volume but again it skips from Blue Book Magazine to Boy Commandos and July-December are on 431-495 of second volume but it skips from Blue book Magazine to Boy's Life. No listing of any renewals for Boston Globe, Boston Sunday Globe, etc. Am I good to go? SusunW ( talk) 22:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Opposite problem to Evelyn Butts, the published image is larger than the better photo, but clearly was cropped from it. Neither masthead nor publishing data indicate copyright, nor does a search of "Richmond" or Times-Dispatch return any registration for 1948 or 1949. Can I use the better cropped image? SusunW ( talk) 22:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Washington, capital city, 1879-1950. Vol. 2. By Constance McLaughlin Green. Type of Work: Text Registration Number / Date: RE0000507022 / 1991-09-09 Renewal registration for: A00000668085 / 1963-12-30 Title: Washington, capital city, 1879-1950. Vol. 2. By Constance McLaughlin Green. Copyright Claimant: Lois Green Carr & Donald Ross Green (C) Variant title: Washington, capital city, 1879-1950 Names: Green, Constance McLaughlin Carr, Lois Green Green, Donald Ross
That said, though, there are a number of photos of her at the Library of Congress that are marked "no known copyright restrictions" (which means public domain), such as https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/97500102/ https://www.loc.gov/item/93516449/ and so forth. Use those! -- GRuban ( talk) 15:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Sharecropper.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. DMacks ( talk) 04:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I see several people now use me for a general reference on free images for Wikipedia, and how difficult it is. Let me let you in on a very current instance of how it works for me. Here is our article Fionnghuala O'Reilly, about the first black Miss Ireland Universe, NASA datanaut (rocket scientist?), and generally impressive person. When I saw it, it didn't have an image.
And this is one of the good ones, when the article subject both wrote back, and agreed, even if it did take four months; the majority of people I write like this don't write back at all, and a good number of those who do write back don't agree. This is just in case any web page readers think this sort of thing is only hard for them. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
-- GRuban ( talk) 13:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Ian had asked if I couldn't find some photos of women protesting for poll tax abolition. The only one I found was marked 1963-1966 from Texas, but no clues where or if it might have been published. Searches in newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, and the Texas portal were moot. Then yesterday, I was working on another article and found this. The girl with the square around her head is the subject of my bio but the apron she has on says "Abolish the poll tax". The image totally sucks. identifying info: "Southern Delegates at American Peace Mobilization in Chicago. [Front row, left to right: Arthur Price, Nashville, Tenn., Valencia Hall, Birmingham, Ala, Blanche Gelders, age 14, Birmingham, Waring Averey, Washington D. C. Back row, left to right: Mary Frances Harris Green Pond, Ala., Anna May Mitchell, Lewsiburgh, Ala., Margaret Gelders, Birmingham, Elinor Eaves, Birmingham, Marjorie Haldsamback?, Birmingham, Maple Duncan, Birmingham. ~ Daily Worker Photo]" Beneath it says, "The Daily Worker photographer made this shot at the American Peace Mobilization meeting in Chicago in September 1940". My snooping tells me the LOC has this paper, but I keep getting, "We're experiencing technical difficulties. Try again later." Then I found this access from Villanova, but of course I cannot access it. The Catalog doesn't indicate the paper was copyrighted 1940-1941. Any chance you can help me find the photo? SusunW ( talk) 14:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
That is wonderful. Atsme, what did you use for this cleanup? -- GRuban ( talk) 23:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Nabil Ahmad at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Yoninah (
talk) 11:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi GRuban, I've reverted your revert. I don't wish to be rude, but there was not a single reliable source for anything on that article. Per WP:BLP, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." Praxidicae clearly challenged the content by removing the content and placing the redirect, thus restoring it would be inappropriate. Best wishes, please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Waggie ( talk) 19:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello GRuban,
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | DannyS712 bot III ( talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Rosguill ( talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 ( talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany ( talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Mccapra ( talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Hughesdarren ( talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Utopes ( talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Beethoven in 1803 |
---|
The birthday display! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, a question came up about a copyright renewal. If the copyright for a 1932 film was renewed in 1959, does that mean that the copyright will expire in 2027? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 12:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
On 18 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nabil Ahmad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nabil Ahmad (pictured) became a comedian after a friend signed him up for a reality show as a prank? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nabil Ahmad. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Nabil Ahmad), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Wug· a·po·des 00:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |