This 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 main page. |
I found an image to add to my Wiki Page from a website. That website gave me permission to add and use that image on the Wiki Page. How do I copyright / license the image so that I can prove I have permission to use it? NeuroCaroline ( talk) 17:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I am planning on uploading some photos I took from the City of Melbourne to the Council House 2 Wikipedia page I have been updating for a research project. I emailed the city of Melbourne asking for permission of use and this is what I received.
Thank you for your enquiry regarding the use of CH2 images and information for your Wikipedia website.
The City of Melbourne gives permission for you to use our photographs and information from our CH2 website www.ch2.com.au under the provision under copyright laws that you reference the photos and information to the City of Melbourne. ie Photographs courtesy of the City of Melbourne; Source, City of Melbourne
I am wondering if this is sufficient enough for use on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdrake25 ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
File:March_Slav.ogg has been nominated at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:March Slav.ogg. Please come and comment.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Typewrtier.png is taken from Easy Stock Photos, which has a statement of "Easy Stock Photos is the best way to find royalty free stock photos, pictures, images & information in the public domain." Do we trust that its images truly are royalty free, or do we say that it's not a trustworthy source? As I understand their conditions page, it seems that they're saying that their images are all PD, but I'm not sure that I understand that correctly; other statements, such as the one I quoted above, make me wonder if some of these are still under copyright and available for royalty-free use but not necessarily reproduction or modification. Nyttend ( talk) 03:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This probably isn't the right place for this, but I'm just giving a heads up that the pictures at Park Pobedy (Moscow Metro), and probably lots of other Russia related pictures, are up for deletion on Commons. There's been an editor nominating a lot of works of recent Russian architecture for deletion, and it looks like a lot of them will get deleted (the right decision, in my non-lawyer opinion). Anyway, I don't know what our copyright standards are on the English Wikipedia, but it looks like some of these photos (like this one) were migrated to Commons, so it might be a good idea to upload them locally (if they are free enough for our copyright guidelines). Buddy431 ( talk) 16:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is an areal view (Luftaufnahme) of Osama bin Laden's compound made by the CIA. So is this image {PD-USGov-CIA}? -- Pilettes ( talk) 18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The article is currently undergoing a GA nomination, and the status of two photographs is doubtful:
I need opinions on this files.-- GDuwen Tell me! 00:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
High school yearbooks did not typically have a copyright notice. Students preordered their copy and there was a single printing of the yearbook. The photographers who took the student portraits made the money on immediate sales; there was no way to reorder your third grade photos. Why bother with a copyright and who would get the royalties. The students created a lot of the yearbook content and photos. I have inspected high school and college yearbooks from the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. None had a copyright notice. -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 16:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Another file that could possibly give an answer File:Kris Rita.jpg, taken the same day and uploaded by the same user. Additionally, here is an interesting link with series of pictures taken by the same author-- GDuwen Tell me! 23:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a question that has no doubt been asked and answered a couple of hundred times, but I can't find it. I own a painting by an artist who has a biography in Wikipedia. Can I upload a photo of the painting? Do I own the copyright, as the owner of the painting? or does the artist own it? Thanks, -- Ravpapa ( talk) 16:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been asked to provide a fair use rationale for the image File:Bolt1-copy.JPG.jpeg. It's used in an article about character Bolt and I was told that the picture would be deleted if i didn't add such a rationale. I'm still not sure what a Non-free use rationale is and the Non-free use rationale guideline only told me that I should add a "justification" for it's usage in the image description page. Where in the image description page? Should I write why I think the picture can be used in the article under "permission"?
I have no personal permission, of course. Joe Moshier allowed the website AnimatedViews to post one of his many drawings on their website. The picture has already been uploaded on several other websites. Therefore, I assumed that Joe Moshier wouldn't mind having this particular drawing, which has already been spread around the internet, uploaded to a Wikipedia article about the character in question. If this justification doesn't suffice, I could try to contact Joe Moshier and ask him for a personal permission, but that really shouldn't be necessary.
It was also written that "A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article. The name of the article the image is used in must be included in the rationale." What does this mean and how do I provide the image with this?
Help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -- Carlminez ( talk) 18:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Sohaib Athar writes at his twitter site as reallyvirtual, that his pictures taken by his mobile phone can be used freely. Is this enough to upload them at Wikimedia Commons? -- Pilettes ( talk) 21:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons seem to be filled with photographs of products, and almost entirely copyrighted with concern for the photograph itself and not the product packaging artwork. I've tried to do the closest to what I think is the right thing here: File:Barratts_sherbet_fountain.jpg
But shouldn't there be a template specifically for photographs of product packaging, given how common it is?-- Farry ( talk) 14:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Our company uploaded an image to wikimedia commons and wish to use it on a wikipedia page. We have been using the wikipedia image wizard but are unable to use the image now on wikimedia commons. We have requested it be deleted and it still remains. Can someone please help us? We wish to have zackheart.jpg deleted from wikimedia commons so we can re-upload to a wikipedia article. Thank you
Outback Zack Productions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.120.50 ( talk) 16:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello
as a newbie I have made a mistake with the copyright information on an uploaded JPEG called Compressor map.jpg.
It is used in centrifugal compressor
as Figure_3.2 – Example Centrifugal compressor Performance Map.
I have spoken to the website owners and they assured me of the following information.
The JPEG was acquired from: http://www.emspowered.com
it is copywritten by Borg-Warner and is sales literature distributed any interested party. It is free to copy, use and mark up as long as the original map is not modified.
It is the compressor map for their S250 turbocharger compressor.
how do i modify the copyright description so that it satisfies the appropriate criteria?
Thank you for the help Martin koronowski, Mkoronowski ( talk) 17:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
(Reposted from commons:Help desk) I have a British book, published 1998 and reprinted 2003, that contains photographs of groups of British footballers from 1885 to the present day. Is it acceptable to upload copies of photographs from before a certain year, and if so which license should I use? Thanks! U+003F ? 22:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
"This image ... is now in the public domain in the United Kingdom, because ... If author is unknown it falls into the public domain 70 years after it was created ... This file may be copyrighted in the United States unless it ... entered the public domain in the United Kingdom prior to 1996."
May I use the Generic Mapping Tool, which is a free, open-source program, to create topographic and color shaded maps to insert onto Wikipedia?
The address for GMT is http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/gmt/ Schlitzer90 ( talk) 23:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I had two questions somewhat related to each other:
The second question is out of curiosity. The first question is more important. Thank you! – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 01:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
At the GA review of Steve Davis the question was raised whether the non-free rational for the File:How to be really interesting by Steve Davis book cover.jpg image is adequate. I think it is, but I need a second opinion. Thanks, Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 07:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia James McNeish supplied me a with a photograph of himself taken by a friend. He asked me to upload to his page on Wikipedia, which I did. I notice that the image has now been deleted because it did not have the appropriate tag. I have no idea what the appropriate tag is and find the information provided in Wikipedia very confusing and sleep inducing. Can you please advise me as to what the appropriate tag is for this type of image. Regards David Colls —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscolls ( talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that some of the text in John Slade (field hockey) is actually taken from this book here. What's the protocol in that case? Aviados ( talk) 19:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.spur.org/files/urb-0411-7.png
It's located on SPUR's website and doesn't appear to be copywritten. I'd like to add it to a wiki article. Scfavrot ( talk) 04:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
en:User:MaxWyss asks for help with "his" fair-use images. If I'm right, the images are owned by Wapmeer (World Agency for Planetary Monitoring and Earthquake Risk Reduction www.wapmerr.org) that he manages. These professors never have time. I'd love to see some help on these matter. Sometimes professors upload images of their educational bodies and get problems with Commons copyvio. Exact science welcomes very much images and expert review. The Foundation is looking for expert review for Wikipedia articles as well. We should make life easier for this group of people. -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 12:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you please indicate the most appropriate tag for the image on the entry on T.P.McKenna. The image is a publicity head shot that was commissioned by the subject for his exclusive use. The identity of the photographer is unknown. The original is the property of the estate of the subject.
Stephen McKenna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonoftp ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone more familiar with licensing requirements take a look at File:Carnivalbreeze.jpg? Normally, a corporate image of a ship would fail free-use as anyone at a port where the ship visits would be able to take an image of the ship. However, in this case, the uploader is stating on the image talk page that the ship is still under construction - the image that was uploaded is an artistic rendering of the completed ship. The image is created and owned by Carnival Corp; but the uploader claims in the existing licensing tag that it was part of a press-kit or marketing materials.
I'm not familiar enough with the copyright requirements to be able to respond on if this is acceptable for Wikipedia use, so would like to ask those more familiar with copyright requirements to take a look and to help clarify the usability of the rendering. Is the existing image allowed under fair-use until such time that the ship launches and alternate sources of images become available? That seems risky to me, as the fair-use would essentially have an expiration date and there's no flag in the licensing tag to notify when it's time to re-review if it's still fair-use. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 04:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
File:RonnMoss2.jpg is identical to the most recent deletion of File:RonnMoss.jpg, I don't know what the earlier deleted images by that name were. ABOUT this image and why I believe it is appropriate for use on Wikipedia: 1) Ronn Moss provided the image and asked me to use it; 2) the copyright holder is CBS/The Bold and The Beautiful and the photo is specifically for promotional purposes - identifying the actor falls well within that scope.
I cannot give permission for the file to be modified or for derivative works to be made from the file, so *if I'm reading the various copyright and licensing agreements correctly*, there weren't any "free" use licenses which would be appropriate. I am putting the image back in the website and I'll check back over the next few days to see if there's discussion. LynnMaudlin ( talk) 05:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This image was never given a license by the author, though other photos from the same set were tagged PD-self; another user added PD-self. Should we consider it PD-self, then? I nominated this image for deletion ( Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_April_21#File:Ukraine_085.jpg), but the nomination was closed as keep. — innotata 17:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This image at flickr.com is licensed under CC-BY, but I am wondering, if they are really the copyright holder. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilettes ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
hi i just wanted to know if i can upload the screen shot of any place using google maps if so under which licence?
regards kp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladiatorkp ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Hound d'artois3.jpg is tagged as {{ PD-self}}. Unless the uploader of this work is more than 130 years old, he/she cannot be the copyright holder of this work (unless, of course, the copyright was passed down within the family). Should this be {{ PD-Art}} instead? Logan Talk Contributions 21:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Are the videos uploaded at http://www.youtube.com/user/usnationalarchives allowed to be uploaded to Wikipedia for use? I am assuming yes, based on this article: Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. There is a video uploaded there (a very long one) that I would like to take an excerpt from (a few minutes). Is this possible? And if so, what would be the license tag? -- Dara ( talk) 01:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Would we be able to upload screenshots from videos released by the CIA showing images of Bin Laden? See VOA Bin Laden pics. The videos were seized by the US Government, would they not be similar to ones taken by the US and administered by the Alien Property Custodian in the World Wars? If not, would the copyright be held by Bin Laden? Oaktree b ( talk) 02:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I am working on an education mobile application to assist people in identifying and providing information on various things found in nature. For example, the user will be able to search through a listing of various trees based on a search criteria (location, leaf type, etc.) and when they finally get to the tree they want, they can display a "details" page on the tree they interested in. On this details page I would like to include an image of the tree and a description of the tree.
As an example, say the user would like more information on the eastern cottonwood ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populus_deltoides). There are two ways that I'm looking at using the data provided on the above linked page:
1. A line-for-line copy of a paragraph from the "Ecology" section, as follows "It needs bare soil and full sun for successful germination and establishment; in natural conditions, it usually grows near rivers, with mud banks left after floods providing ideal conditions for seedling germination; human soil cultivation has allowed it to increase its range away from such habitats."
2. Re-working the content, for example, having a heading of "Age" and then just listing "70 to 100 years (potentially 200 to 400 years)" rather than using the entire "Age" section paragraph of "Eastern cottonwoods typically live 70 to 100 years, but they have the potential to live 200 to 400 years if they have good genetics, and if they have a good growing environment."
As long as the content I'm using is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, and as long as I follow the procedure for properly displaying the CC and attribution information for what I'm using, am I OK using the content in my app as I propose above?
I am also wondering — since the content I will be including in my app will be a combination of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licenses materials and non-CC copyright materials (content provided to me from other sources), with regards to the ShareAlike licensing, does that mean my entire application has to be made available under the CC ShareAlike license, or just the specific material I'm using that has been provided to me under the CC ShareAlike license?
Any insight into this would be much appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboyk ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I have read that (a few times now) and I assume that I am OK in using the content in both ways I want to use that data (as I'm using it sometimes verbatim and sometimes modified), but I'm just hoping for a confirmation on this before I begin to compile all the data.
As well, I am still unsure (after reading documents here and on the Creative Commons site) as to whether or not the complete application I'm working on that needs to be released under the CC Share Alike license, or just that the content that was previously CC Share Alike need to be displayed as CC Share Alike for continued use by others?
Again, I have made assumptions that I'm OK to use that data as I stated and that I don't need to release the entire app under CC Share Alike (since it would conflict with the copyright of other data used in the app), but before I go through all the work of compiling and organizing the data and copyright information for everything, and actually building the app based on this data, I'm just hoping for something a little more solid beyond my own assumptions and understanding of all these rules from someone with more knowledge of it all that what I have. Theboyk ( talk) 16:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to include this picture, but I'm not sure about the copyright and how to tag it. It should be public domain because it is a work of public university.
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=6269.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictien ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I am a professional aviation photographer and have added a number of pictures but I got a warning on a few of them. I have now added the information that I photographed them myself. Could you check this out? Is it OK now?
Will the warnings disappear now? Have I avoided the deletion?
Pls come back to me on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brorsson ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, these look fine now. At the time I tagged them it wasn't clear from the description that you took them yourself, and unfortunately we've often had cases where people uploaded just these types of images under false licensing claims, so we have to be a bit cautious about them. Thank you very much for your contributions; these are great and valuable images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello experts,
I am simultaneously working on two articles that could benefit from illustrations. They're at WP:SDA/PUCPresidents and WP:SDA/LSUPresidents. I notice that File:UF00031408.jpg has permissions for use based on being published before a certain date (1923). Could the first picture from this and the first ten or so pictures from this be used under a similar permission? I realize the date of publishing isn't on them, but it seems like a fair assumption that those pictures from the 1800s were published before 1923. If someone could take a look and let me know, that would be great! BelloWello ( talk) 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I have some doubt about Signature of popular living people. Are signature is public domain material or can any one upload signature of any popular living people like politician claming that his work??
see the list of Signature of India Politician by User:GaneshBhakt. - Jayanta Nath ( Talk| Contrb) 09:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
If I post a BRITISH photo from the 1930's, with no authorship, then that is OK, for by law it is out of copyright, being over 70 years ago. The wikipedia has a tag allowing for that. I know this will come as a surprise to a number of editors (some of which use idiotbots) but Britain is NOT a colony of America. If something is out of copyright in Britain it is nothing at all to do with America. Not a thing. British copyright means British copyright. If they mean American copyright, they will say American copyright and not British copyright. If you do not understand the long words I have used here, leave me a note on my "Talk" and I will try to simplify it even further. Meanwhile, please stop vandalising my work.( Cyberia3 ( talk) 20:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC))
An artist composed a portrait of my grandfather in 1956. The portrait was given to my family and I am now the sole owner. Does the artist still own the copyright or do I? Also, if the artist still owns the copyright, am I allowed to reproduce the portrait electronically for non commercial purposes (i.e. on Wikipedia)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottoconnor ( talk • contribs) 11:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it fair use to use the logo of a political party outside of wikipedia article specifically about the political party itself, e.g. for an article about an election the party participated in? For example, using File:Miljöpartiet.svg on Swedish general election, 2014? — VikingViolinist | Talk 12:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Does this copyright statement mean we can use the images on Wikipedia? GaneshBhakt ( talk) 12:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Can we make vector graphics with newspaper diagrams/maps as the source? GaneshBhakt ( talk) 14:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I've received the following message from Magog the Ogre( talk):
Images from the official White House's Flickr account use the Flickr license Work of the U.S. Government, that links to http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml, that, to my understanding, states the images are in the public domain.
However, the image's captions on Flickr include the shivering statement:
“ | The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House. | ” |
— The White House, Flickr.com |
While I understand that the second part, the only beginning with "and may not be used in commercial or..." is restricted by "in any way suggests approval", and thus is not a copyright issue, the first part, seems to prohibit the image to be manipulated. This clashes with http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml explicitly allowing to "create derivative works".
Should we care about what is said on the images captions at Flickr? -- Damiens.rf 19:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, perhaps by taking the image from the website, downloaders bind themselves to terms and conditions. None of which binds Wikipedia, or course, as that would be a contract, not a copyright matter.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
“ |
Thank you for uploading File:Aliger costatus.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged. If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre( talk) 11:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC) |
” |
The image in question was given to me by a friend, who has a
Lobatus costatus in her aquarium. She gave me permition to use it as I see fit, and It's clearly not professional work. What is necessary to regularize this picture? Thanks in advance and best wishes. --
Daniel Cavallari (
talk)
21:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia (but not Commons) allows works to be included here whenever they are in the public domain in the USA (e.g. {{ PD-US}}), even in cases where the work isn't free in it's country of origin (see: Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights).
That's all well and good. Now for the complicated part. How do we tag / identify / process / etc. a work that is a derivative work of something that is public domain in the USA but not elsewhere. For example, suppose I've made a photographic comparison of a street in 1913 Berlin to the same street in modern day. The old image is PD in the US (published pre-1923), but in Germany because the photographer died less than 70 years ago it would still be under copyright. Suppose further that the new image is original, and I would want to license the whole thing CC-BY-SA.
Under US law it would seem that I am entitled to do that. Under German law, it would seem that I would need permission to do that. Since Wikipedia follows US law, it would seem that I am allowed to use the composite work here.
However, how would one tag such an image, and how would one go about warning reusers that it might not be free outside the US? Dragons flight ( talk) 22:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Is the Renaissance Lute image in use in Lute from Britannica? Query on the talk page. Lantrix // Talk// Contrib// 11:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Earsdon 1910.jpg was, as you might guess, taken in 1910, so I think it's out of copyright in the U.S. But it has a more expansive tag that says it is out of copyright even in countries that specify Life-of-author+100, which isn't true. I'm a novice on image tagging. Ma t c hups 19:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that I've created a new copyright template at Template:PD-ad based on this conversation. Before it becomes widely used, I thought I'd best get feedback in case there is some nuance I am missing, and you guys seem like the best people to approach about it. :D -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, the use of this justification is not new to WP. What brought it to my attention was a question I'd asked here in February and the reply. The file in question was changed as a result of it. Checking just a bit further, I see that the editor who provided it had been using it since at least 2009: File:SWTPC 6800 Computer Oct 1977.jpg File:MITS Calculator 908DM 1974.jpg Have no idea how many others have also used it. We hope ( talk) 02:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey, we've had a discussion going at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Removing of rank images from rank pages, and we need the expertise of somebody well-versed in the copyright laws of the UK and Sri Lanka. Essentially, we want to make free versions of military rank insignia to avoid concerns of overuse of the fair-use portion of the NFCC. However, we aren't sure if we can redraw them and release them into the PD, or if we would simply be making derivative works that are still copywritten. Since the discussion petered out a couple days ago, I was hoping some experts could visit there and weigh in if we can do this. bahamut0013 words deeds 21:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd like for someone to weigh in on File:Moebiusband wikipedia animation.ogg, which uses the Wikipedia logo as the texture of the surface in the animation. Does this mean that the image has to be changed or is this a licensing issue? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
how is giraffe pelli and me the same as other roald darl books and how is it different ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.185.216 ( talk) 07:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
What is a copyright license? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJMP617 ( talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
For a article about MATIS Group I wrote an inquiry to the company whether I could use one of their logos for a wikipedia article. They sent me the one I uploaded under File:MATIS_Groupe.jpg per mail and told me that it is OK to be published. So now there is no Internet source I could cite nor can it be found elsewhere in the Internet and the file is tagged for deletion. What to do? Many thanks in advance.
BarbecueAndPanacotta ( talk) 22:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, i've been editing Wikipedia 4 almost 2 ms. In fact, I've already edited more than 15 articles, yet I haven't contributed even 1 photo for editing some articles because of lack of copyright 2 tag a photo. How could I acquire my copyright so I could tag a photo 2 editing an article? Marco Bisnar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco bisnar ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi I recently uploaded File:Megatron in Dark of the Moon.png and I can't seem to find the right lisence for it, can someone please put a lisence on the image please as I don't know which would suit it best. Thanks. Dr Eggman12 18:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi i added the logo of LogicalDOC File:Ldoc_logo.png. Please can you write me what i have to do now to get this file accepted by Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprmw7 ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I am an intern for a company that would like to have a Wikipedia entry created for them, I am trying to figure hou how to add their logo to the info box without making it a public image. They have a copyright on the image but I have their permission to use it on their wiki page. How would I go aobut adding the picture? Mr.Gaebrial ( talk)Mr.Gaebrial —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC).
FYI, you can edit, but you need to be careful about doing so. Make sure it meets our criteria for inclusion and neutrality and you can write it. Please contact me on my talk page if you need assistance. I'll be happy to help. — BQZip01 — talk 06:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Can't seem to get the copyright added to a picture that has been added to a friends page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leicapic ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The book name is called "Time Bomb," and I need it for an article I'm making for the book. Booyahhayoob ( talk) 21:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I am a user, working on my first article and I want to upload photo images I took and I own related to my subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libraartistmgnt ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but merely out of curiosity, if an image is uploaded to Commons from Flickr and licensed BY or BY-SA, are any professional media outlets allowed to use this image in their articles, including journals, magazines, etc? – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 04:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a copyright question at User talk:John Tewkesbury which I'm not competent to answer.
The text at User:John Tewkesbury is a reworked copy of a piece previously published by the Tewkesbury Historical Society - see the contributor's explanation at EAR. Comparing the email address accidentally posted here and at the bottom of this THS web page, it's clear that John Tewkesbury ( talk · contribs) is the president of the THS.
What is the next question to ask him? Could an expert please join in the thread at User talk:John Tewkesbury? -- John of Reading ( talk) 08:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I have used this image in the RAF Northolt article - File:RAF Northolt aerial view 1917.jpg - under the non-free Crown Copyright licencing as it came from a book produced by the Royal Air Force under Crown Copyright. It has been suggested that as it was most likely to have been produced by the British government in 1917, it actually qualifies for {{ PD-BritishGov}} instead. Is this correct, or should it remain under Crown Copyright? Harrison49 ( talk) 12:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Everyone :)
I was just wondering, would I be allowed to upload a screenshot from Google Maps? The picture is for the Westfield Southland article. Thank You. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 12:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Please forgive me for going on and on about this, but one of the respondents above is not experienced in copyright, so I'd like to continue examining this question. Let me come at this question from another angle, and then maybe we can eventually understand that this video is free of copyright and free to use. Therefore, it should be free to link to from a WP article. New tack: Is it permissible to link to a video B-roll without bringing up the copyright question? For the people here, a B-roll refers to footage provided free of charge to broadcast news organizations as a means of gaining free publicity. For example, an automobile maker might shoot a video of its assembly line, hoping that segments will be used in stories about the new model year. B-roll sometimes makes its way into stock footage libraries (and therefore free to pass around from one user to another). This B-roll has been around for at least 15 years, and it's labelled as a "B-roll" at the beginning of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6_1o_FxsNs&feature=related . However, in this question I am asking about the video as a B-roll, not as a "free for commercial use" video. In other words, this video states in different ways that the world can use it for whatever purpose, but this question is just from the B-roll perspective. Thanks! Santamoly ( talk) 04:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
{{ PD-Pre1978}} and {{ PD-US-no notice}} are currently very similar. I think {{ PD-Pre1978}} is not a good name. {{ PD-US-no notice}} should cover until March 1, 1989. John Vandenberg ( chat) 04:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I upload logo of vitoria riboque i dont know how to add copyright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salah44 ( talk • contribs) 12:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is logo File:Vitoria_Riboque.jpg photo is property of club today created —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salah44 ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Can somebody update me on our current practices regarding issues of lack of "freedom of panorama" in foreign countries of origin please. If I take a photograph of a modern copyrighted work of architecture, in a country where such photographs, according to local law, would be considered to be derivatives under the copyright of the architect (e.g. France), but in a way that would be free according to the "freedom of panorama" rules of the US, and if I then publish that photograph in the US (e.g. by posting it on Wikipedia): does US law still protect the foreign copyright, or can I validly release it?
I know, of course, that Commons rejects such images, because they insist an image must be free both in the US and in the country of origin (see commons:Commons:FOP).
The issue is that if we take the same stance as Commons and refuse to accept these as free files, we could then accept non-free alternatives (e.g. non-free photographs published by the architect). If we take the stance that free self-made photographs are possible, non-free files are out. Currently an issue here.
{{ AutoReplaceable fair use buildings}} does list among possible NFCC reasons "that the building is located in a country where photographs of buildings are considered derivative of the building's copyright", so it would appear we should reject the free files. But I've seen at least one fellow administrator here on en-wiki rejecting a deletion tag in such a case with the argument that only US law counts here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
[:File:Varroa_on_larvae.jpg]
I am confused as to the permission requirements I believe I am to list attibution - yet cannot find a person/organistion to attibute it to. Is this picture a wiki picture? or does in belong to "pollinator" who does not seem to have an info...
Many thanks liz.rohonczy@inspection.gc.ca
Hello, I'd like to upload a couple of images to illustrate the articles Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) and Sylph (Dungeons & Dragons). I haven't done anything like this before, and need some advice on how to do it properly and avoid getting the images deleted for copyright reasons. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 00:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sir / Madam,
I am a Professor at the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India actively engaged in teaching and research in the area of CAD/CAM and Manufacturing Engg for the past 30 years.
I have been writing a textbook on Computer Graphics and Product Modeling for CAD/CAM for the Senior UG and Graduate students and practicing engineers. I wanted to include a Figure to explain the concept of projections. viz some classical paintings from artist who had used the technique of perspective projection I am listing below the url for the Fig. for your kind reference which I have taken from Wikipaedia.
File:Piazza_San_Marco_with_the_Basilica,_by_Canaletto,_1730._Fogg_Art_Museum,_Cambridge.jpg
May I request you to kindly accord permission for the use of this Fig for the purpose of inclusion in the Textbook. I have included the relevant reference to the Wikipaedia and the url below the Fig. In case you wish that I use some other similar Fig / painting , kindly arrange to send me the same.Any guidance in the matter will be greatly appreciated.
Awaiting your kind reply.
Best regards
Sincerely
Prof. S. S. Pande Mechanical Eng. Dept. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay Powai, Mumbai 400076, India
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.23.4 ( talk) 04:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The following link is Part 1 of 6 videos published as one video by Suzuki America during their lawsuit with Consumer Reports:
15 seconds into the video, it states clearly, in print on screen: "Permission is granted to use excerpts for commercial broadcast or print". After the lawsuit was settled, Suzuki America took down the video and it's now on YouTube. Part of the lawsuit settlement was that neither party would discuss the issue. Is it permissible to link to the video from a WP article on this subject? Santamoly ( talk) 08:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The video appears to have been uploaded to YouTube by someone who isn't the copyright owner. I think it's therefore wise to assume, unless proven otherwise, that it's a copyright violation, and therefore covered by WP:ELNEVER. Wikipedia should not link to it. —Tim Pierce ( talk) 14:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the File:Persian Gulf by Gamal Abdel Nasser.jpg there was a discussion in FFD. Egypt's Intellectual Property Law 82 of 2002 states that there is no copyright protection for "Official documents, whatever their source or target language, such as laws, regulations, resolutions and decisions, international conventions, court decisions, award of arbitrators and decisions of administrative committees having judicial competence." Now the question is that isn't a sitting president's sealed/stamped letter, an official document of the state? The term used in that law to describe those items is "such as" which is language used to cite examples, not to set a condition of exclusivity. So my reading is that other official documents like the sitting president's sealed/stamped letter also can be considered as an official document. What is your opinion on this matter? -- Wayiran ( talk) 07:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, a user has added this picture, I have had a small discussion with them as seen User_talk:Acnaren#Arunachala_Nithya_acnaren_2010.jpg - I have the feeling from the users comments that there is no evidence of permission and that the user can't release the pic under a commons license without it? Off2riorob ( talk) 07:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I tried to add one of the photographs I took of Barrells Hall, but it says I need to tag it?
Tedzwedz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedzwedz ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
This logo represents the Gabber music:
But the image is probably copyrighted. Has somebody sources about this information? Please, tell me if there is a better place to ask this question. Ftiercel ( talk) 17:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this a copyright violation? doomgaze (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg has a frame that is, according to our article at
Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?), a part of the artist's painting. The artist even painted on the frame to make the inscription look carved. I am not an expert on this—I will point one or more knowledgeable users to this discussion should they have anything to add—but I am assuming the frame dates back to 1433, when the painting was created. Is there any special PD tag that needs to be used here? Presumably, the YorckProject PD tag, which specifically states, "art depicted in this image", could cover the licensing for the frame, correct? But the PD-Art tag refers to a two-dimensional artwork, hence my confusion. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁
gala
xies
10:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
For use of images for living people, can Facebook images like these be accepted? Or can pictures from pages like Baidu (which have a creative common license) be used? Please contact me on my talk page. Thanks!-- Lionratz ( talk) 03:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I created both of the images I uploaded but i think I chose the wrong tag to place within the description...I need some help getting these things write or it will get deleted ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceepub ( talk • contribs) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Note that this user has been blocked, as it was a role account for Jae E's publicity company, Icee Publicity. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a photo (original) given to my grandfather (Richard Chapman) that was taken aboard a cruse liner (Cunard) in 1951.
Cunard is British-American company.
The back of the photo has a stamp that says:
Cunard Line Photo By W.A. No Charge For
I want to post this photo, which I own, on his Wikipedia profile.
In terms of a licensing "tag", what category would this fall under?
Thanks in advance!! RchapmanIII ( talk) 01:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This is our own photograph taken of our own anamorphic art. Lots of instructions are out there, but none seems appropriate for this situation. Please help with clear, concise directions. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrna Hoffman ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to upload an image to File:Y2K_Hosts_in_digital_sets.jpg for the article Y2K – World in Crisis at: [6]. It is of a screenshot sent me by the creator of the series, Warren Chaney. I believe it qualifies for fair use and is of low resolution. However, if need be - I can obtain permission. I thought I had answered all relevant questions but continue to get "need info" comments. After several attempts, I was afraid I may be making matters worse, hence the request for help. Thank you very much. Sinclairindex Sinclairindex ( talk) 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I finally figured out the problem and was able to load the image. I suspect that the problem was me, not the system. I appreciate the help. Sinclairindex ( talk) 16:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I have all the times problems in uploading an image file. Wikipedia is not co-operating me at all. I dont know why? Krantmlverma ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC).
A book has a photo of an old painting in it. If I was to scan just the photo of the painting, what sort of copyright issues arise and what tags would be appropriate? I'm assuming that the artist is no longer alive but presumably the author/puiblisher of the book might have some copyright on the image. I presume that "worst case" would under fair use provided a satisfactory fair use claim could be made. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 11:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I am attempting to have permissions sent of several images used in two articles but the company forward the permissions states that the permission address (permissions-commonswikimedia.org) fails to go through - always returning an "error" message. I tried with an email and also received an error message.
Is there an alternate email site that they may use? If so, I will forward it to them.
Thanks, Sinclairindex ( talk) 13:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Um, yeah, Shia LaBeouf's mug shot will be deleted in a matter of days, and I don't know how to get the license, I mean, I got the picture from Google, so if that helps tell me. So contact me as soon as possible about all this and hit me back as soon as you can. Thanks. RoadHouse ( talk) 21:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The people at help desk pointed me to here. The question is at WP:Help desk#School hymn copyright. Moray An Par ( talk) 00:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
An IP user recently removed File:Labret phallic coddling.jpg from the article Point of view pornography and expressed concerns about a) the age of the person depicted, and b) the consent of the person depicted. Regarding the age of the one performing, it seems borderline (although other opinions would be welcome). However, is the person depicted's explicit permission necessary for a use of the file, or should we keep using it (as long as the person depicted is of legal age) per WP:NOTCENSORED? Sorry if this is the wrong forum; I am not sure where to go; User:Fetchcomms suggested I go here. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Pistol of Azad2699.jpeg Please let me know under what licensing re-use I can upload this file. Krantmlverma ( talk) 08:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC) The person died in 1931 his pistol in kept in the Allahabad Museum. I have taken it's image from a photo published in some of the book published long ago. It's author Ram Krishna khatri had presented this book to me. That book is in my own library. Krantmlverma ( talk) 08:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I am helping to make a wiki all about "Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective". I am thinking about copying the article about "Sissel (Ghost Trick)" and pasting it into the "Sissel" article on the Ghost Trick Wiki. My question is "Is this action okay for me to do?" Please answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiiGuy999 ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! I was just wandering if I can put an image of Haley Reinhart for her profile on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philiponi ( talk • contribs) 21:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I made a page a few years ago for Mathias Anderle...adding a photograph that I took of him which was removed because I didn't do it right or whatever. I am trying to figure out how to add another photo and it's very confusing to me. I just uploaded a more recent photo to the "commons" but I don't know how to tag it as a picture that I took and am willing to share with the world. I saw something earlier about that but after spending about an hour looking for the instructions I cannot find them again. If someone can help I would appreciate it. I am not computer/internet savvy so please explain it in kindergarten terms if you can.
Thanks,
Martha (gohuskies77) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohuskies77 ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
For countries, such as the Philippines, which doesn't have freedom of panorama, does it extend to the interior of the building? Say the facade of the opera house cannot be uploaded here as a free image due to lack of FOP, but can a photo took by myself of a musical performance inside the opera house itself be free? Moray An Par ( talk) 02:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I've seen the following document spread in many articles in many languages, however, my most concern is that a large number of internet websites refer to this document on Wikipedia as an accurate source. Wikipedia's reputation is all of our first priority, and I don't see any details about the source of the document. Any fatwa always contains examples and references, so I highly consider this document manipulated; as such a large Scholarly university never made such a claim. Can anyone please verify its copyright! ~ AdvertAdam talk 02:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking that there is not sufficient justification for the use of the copyright cast photo in this cast listing section, correct? Kristine_(TV_series)#Cast_and_Characters Active Banana (bananaphone 03:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Hopefully, I'm asking my question in the right section. I'm the author and designer of the TV logo File:Sidewalks-logo.png and I gave permission for the logo to be used on Wiki. When I did it back in 2006, I listed the image as "public domain." I would like to change it to a copyright tag or some other copyright tag that could be used for a TV logo. Can anybody help me with this? I don't want to change the copyright on my own.
Tvdir ( talk) 23:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you check my uploaded images now to be sure they have enough copyright info as to not be deleted? The wikipedia entry I wrote is for Maurice Bebb and I uploaded 3 images there. I received a bot message and went back to add the copyright line "copyright The Estate of MR Bebb" Is this enough info now? thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Printmkr ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Simply put, I want to upload an image from a 1948 issue of Astounding Stories to illustrate the article on " The Mule", an important character in Asimov's Foundation series. The article is currently illustrated by a 1960s paperback book cover, which bears little similarity to the character as actually described by the author (and probably lacks an appropriate rationale for use in this article). The "non-free character" template does not apply, because that covers only characters from visual media. The character's physical appearance is discussed in the article, and is (in-universe) a significant plot point. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
CC-BY(-SA) allows for remixing and adapting, two words used by CC in their license ( [7]), but I haven't been able to find what kind of remixing is allowed. In fact, the word "remix" kind of confuses me. Is there a point where images can be too altered? Anyway, my question is this: if there is an image of a currently-living celebrity and their eyes are looking in a ridiculous direction, but otherwise the portrait is fine—and were the image licensed as CC-BY and uploaded to Commons—would I be in my right to "move" the eyes and have them looking in a more natural position, like at the camera? I'm curious if this is allowed within CC (and even BLP) jurisdiction. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 03:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hashkjldfafhnjsghksdfbvgkerhtfklsfdhgjsklgs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.7.77 ( talk) 06:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
When the Eisenhower dollar was under consideration in 1969, Krause Publications (they do hobby newspapers) made a mockup of what it might look like, to be found here. They combined the portrait from the Eisenhower presidential medal struck by the Mint, unquestionably PD, with the lettering from the Franklin half dollar also undoubtedly PD, and tweaked the date slightly (probably used the first three digits from a 1960 to 1963 half's date with a "9" taken from a 1949 or 1959 half). Is the resultant work in the public domain? Keep in mind it is not three dimensional, as this "coin" was never struck, they just did the 1969 version of Photoshop.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 04:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"... If the already existing work is in the public domain ... then only the new material that’s been added to it is entitled to copyright protection. The original work remains in the public domain. Just remember that the new material added by the derivative author is not in the public domain."
Can I upload screen captures from the video and PDF from this site: http://www.amisom-au.org/article-84 It says "RESTRICTIONS: NONE" Hamza-nor ( talk) 19:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Specifically, File:Nigger and pink cardigan in UK magazine advert circa 1948.jpg in the article Nigger. I added the image to the article to illustrate a British usage of that word which appears to have been considered quite acceptable at the time but obviously would not be nowadays. Another editor reverted and said that the fair use rationale does not cover that use of that image. I would contend that it does because it is the advertisement itself and its use of that word which is the subject of commentary, and for the reasons explained in the fair use rationale, but since this unusual case could be something of a grey area which is not described in current guidelines I would appreciate some additional opinions on the matter. Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 00:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. In the UK, a separate copyright notice in the ad itself is not required for it to be copyright: however, if no creator is identified the copyright expires 70 years after publication (as opposed to 70 years after their death if the photographer and/or designer(s) were identified), so it seems I can't use this till 2019. In the meantime I'll put a mention in the article with a citation, though it would work better with the picture so I'll put a note in my diary for 1st January 2019 :-) Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 20:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear sir I have tried to add the photo to the article 'Mohammad Najatuallah Siddiqui', but the same has not been added.It is because of copyright. I have personally talked to the economist in this regard and he has no objection to add the photo in the article. If you still have any objection in this regard, the economist (Najatuallah Siddiqui ) told me to contact him on "(email removed fro privacy)". As we do not no HTML well, so it becomes difficult for us to add the photo in right way. Thanking you one again Sana_commerce28 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sana commerce28 ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I recently ( boldly) uploaded this picture to the Commons. It is a Photoshopped combination (i.e. derived work) of two screenshots from The Seven Year Itch's trailer, which seems to be in public domain because it was released prior to 1964 and never copyrighted separately; therefore, the chance to register it for copyright has expired (1955 + 28 = 1983). I am basing my reasoning off of a couple other The Seven Year Itch uploads by other editors and this site. Could someone take a look and let me know what they think about the status of the trailer? Should it be on Commons? Thanks. This was copied and pasted here from User:Moonriddengirl's talk page per her suggestion Crisco 1492 ( talk) 15:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Can an image of a historically important dead person be used in a Wikipedia article specifically about that person if the image is low resolution and cropped? Doesn't this meet Fair Use rules covered by U.S. law and Wikipedia policy for using Fair Use images?-- Orygun ( talk) 15:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a useful, simple diagram that I'd like to use that's from someone's thesis in The University of Melbourne in Australia, but I'm not quite sure about the copyright policy with theses from other countries. Can I upload the picture without contacting the author or university? Is it not enough to give him credit and reference his thesis? Here's a link to his thesis: Interfacial Effects on Aqueous Sonochemistry and Sonoluminescence -- Aolzick ( talk) 23:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
This 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 main page. |
I found an image to add to my Wiki Page from a website. That website gave me permission to add and use that image on the Wiki Page. How do I copyright / license the image so that I can prove I have permission to use it? NeuroCaroline ( talk) 17:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I am planning on uploading some photos I took from the City of Melbourne to the Council House 2 Wikipedia page I have been updating for a research project. I emailed the city of Melbourne asking for permission of use and this is what I received.
Thank you for your enquiry regarding the use of CH2 images and information for your Wikipedia website.
The City of Melbourne gives permission for you to use our photographs and information from our CH2 website www.ch2.com.au under the provision under copyright laws that you reference the photos and information to the City of Melbourne. ie Photographs courtesy of the City of Melbourne; Source, City of Melbourne
I am wondering if this is sufficient enough for use on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdrake25 ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
File:March_Slav.ogg has been nominated at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:March Slav.ogg. Please come and comment.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Typewrtier.png is taken from Easy Stock Photos, which has a statement of "Easy Stock Photos is the best way to find royalty free stock photos, pictures, images & information in the public domain." Do we trust that its images truly are royalty free, or do we say that it's not a trustworthy source? As I understand their conditions page, it seems that they're saying that their images are all PD, but I'm not sure that I understand that correctly; other statements, such as the one I quoted above, make me wonder if some of these are still under copyright and available for royalty-free use but not necessarily reproduction or modification. Nyttend ( talk) 03:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This probably isn't the right place for this, but I'm just giving a heads up that the pictures at Park Pobedy (Moscow Metro), and probably lots of other Russia related pictures, are up for deletion on Commons. There's been an editor nominating a lot of works of recent Russian architecture for deletion, and it looks like a lot of them will get deleted (the right decision, in my non-lawyer opinion). Anyway, I don't know what our copyright standards are on the English Wikipedia, but it looks like some of these photos (like this one) were migrated to Commons, so it might be a good idea to upload them locally (if they are free enough for our copyright guidelines). Buddy431 ( talk) 16:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is an areal view (Luftaufnahme) of Osama bin Laden's compound made by the CIA. So is this image {PD-USGov-CIA}? -- Pilettes ( talk) 18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The article is currently undergoing a GA nomination, and the status of two photographs is doubtful:
I need opinions on this files.-- GDuwen Tell me! 00:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
High school yearbooks did not typically have a copyright notice. Students preordered their copy and there was a single printing of the yearbook. The photographers who took the student portraits made the money on immediate sales; there was no way to reorder your third grade photos. Why bother with a copyright and who would get the royalties. The students created a lot of the yearbook content and photos. I have inspected high school and college yearbooks from the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. None had a copyright notice. -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 16:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Another file that could possibly give an answer File:Kris Rita.jpg, taken the same day and uploaded by the same user. Additionally, here is an interesting link with series of pictures taken by the same author-- GDuwen Tell me! 23:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a question that has no doubt been asked and answered a couple of hundred times, but I can't find it. I own a painting by an artist who has a biography in Wikipedia. Can I upload a photo of the painting? Do I own the copyright, as the owner of the painting? or does the artist own it? Thanks, -- Ravpapa ( talk) 16:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been asked to provide a fair use rationale for the image File:Bolt1-copy.JPG.jpeg. It's used in an article about character Bolt and I was told that the picture would be deleted if i didn't add such a rationale. I'm still not sure what a Non-free use rationale is and the Non-free use rationale guideline only told me that I should add a "justification" for it's usage in the image description page. Where in the image description page? Should I write why I think the picture can be used in the article under "permission"?
I have no personal permission, of course. Joe Moshier allowed the website AnimatedViews to post one of his many drawings on their website. The picture has already been uploaded on several other websites. Therefore, I assumed that Joe Moshier wouldn't mind having this particular drawing, which has already been spread around the internet, uploaded to a Wikipedia article about the character in question. If this justification doesn't suffice, I could try to contact Joe Moshier and ask him for a personal permission, but that really shouldn't be necessary.
It was also written that "A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article. The name of the article the image is used in must be included in the rationale." What does this mean and how do I provide the image with this?
Help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -- Carlminez ( talk) 18:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Sohaib Athar writes at his twitter site as reallyvirtual, that his pictures taken by his mobile phone can be used freely. Is this enough to upload them at Wikimedia Commons? -- Pilettes ( talk) 21:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons seem to be filled with photographs of products, and almost entirely copyrighted with concern for the photograph itself and not the product packaging artwork. I've tried to do the closest to what I think is the right thing here: File:Barratts_sherbet_fountain.jpg
But shouldn't there be a template specifically for photographs of product packaging, given how common it is?-- Farry ( talk) 14:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Our company uploaded an image to wikimedia commons and wish to use it on a wikipedia page. We have been using the wikipedia image wizard but are unable to use the image now on wikimedia commons. We have requested it be deleted and it still remains. Can someone please help us? We wish to have zackheart.jpg deleted from wikimedia commons so we can re-upload to a wikipedia article. Thank you
Outback Zack Productions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.120.50 ( talk) 16:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello
as a newbie I have made a mistake with the copyright information on an uploaded JPEG called Compressor map.jpg.
It is used in centrifugal compressor
as Figure_3.2 – Example Centrifugal compressor Performance Map.
I have spoken to the website owners and they assured me of the following information.
The JPEG was acquired from: http://www.emspowered.com
it is copywritten by Borg-Warner and is sales literature distributed any interested party. It is free to copy, use and mark up as long as the original map is not modified.
It is the compressor map for their S250 turbocharger compressor.
how do i modify the copyright description so that it satisfies the appropriate criteria?
Thank you for the help Martin koronowski, Mkoronowski ( talk) 17:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
(Reposted from commons:Help desk) I have a British book, published 1998 and reprinted 2003, that contains photographs of groups of British footballers from 1885 to the present day. Is it acceptable to upload copies of photographs from before a certain year, and if so which license should I use? Thanks! U+003F ? 22:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
"This image ... is now in the public domain in the United Kingdom, because ... If author is unknown it falls into the public domain 70 years after it was created ... This file may be copyrighted in the United States unless it ... entered the public domain in the United Kingdom prior to 1996."
May I use the Generic Mapping Tool, which is a free, open-source program, to create topographic and color shaded maps to insert onto Wikipedia?
The address for GMT is http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/gmt/ Schlitzer90 ( talk) 23:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I had two questions somewhat related to each other:
The second question is out of curiosity. The first question is more important. Thank you! – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 01:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
At the GA review of Steve Davis the question was raised whether the non-free rational for the File:How to be really interesting by Steve Davis book cover.jpg image is adequate. I think it is, but I need a second opinion. Thanks, Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 07:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia James McNeish supplied me a with a photograph of himself taken by a friend. He asked me to upload to his page on Wikipedia, which I did. I notice that the image has now been deleted because it did not have the appropriate tag. I have no idea what the appropriate tag is and find the information provided in Wikipedia very confusing and sleep inducing. Can you please advise me as to what the appropriate tag is for this type of image. Regards David Colls —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscolls ( talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that some of the text in John Slade (field hockey) is actually taken from this book here. What's the protocol in that case? Aviados ( talk) 19:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.spur.org/files/urb-0411-7.png
It's located on SPUR's website and doesn't appear to be copywritten. I'd like to add it to a wiki article. Scfavrot ( talk) 04:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
en:User:MaxWyss asks for help with "his" fair-use images. If I'm right, the images are owned by Wapmeer (World Agency for Planetary Monitoring and Earthquake Risk Reduction www.wapmerr.org) that he manages. These professors never have time. I'd love to see some help on these matter. Sometimes professors upload images of their educational bodies and get problems with Commons copyvio. Exact science welcomes very much images and expert review. The Foundation is looking for expert review for Wikipedia articles as well. We should make life easier for this group of people. -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 12:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you please indicate the most appropriate tag for the image on the entry on T.P.McKenna. The image is a publicity head shot that was commissioned by the subject for his exclusive use. The identity of the photographer is unknown. The original is the property of the estate of the subject.
Stephen McKenna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonoftp ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone more familiar with licensing requirements take a look at File:Carnivalbreeze.jpg? Normally, a corporate image of a ship would fail free-use as anyone at a port where the ship visits would be able to take an image of the ship. However, in this case, the uploader is stating on the image talk page that the ship is still under construction - the image that was uploaded is an artistic rendering of the completed ship. The image is created and owned by Carnival Corp; but the uploader claims in the existing licensing tag that it was part of a press-kit or marketing materials.
I'm not familiar enough with the copyright requirements to be able to respond on if this is acceptable for Wikipedia use, so would like to ask those more familiar with copyright requirements to take a look and to help clarify the usability of the rendering. Is the existing image allowed under fair-use until such time that the ship launches and alternate sources of images become available? That seems risky to me, as the fair-use would essentially have an expiration date and there's no flag in the licensing tag to notify when it's time to re-review if it's still fair-use. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 04:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
File:RonnMoss2.jpg is identical to the most recent deletion of File:RonnMoss.jpg, I don't know what the earlier deleted images by that name were. ABOUT this image and why I believe it is appropriate for use on Wikipedia: 1) Ronn Moss provided the image and asked me to use it; 2) the copyright holder is CBS/The Bold and The Beautiful and the photo is specifically for promotional purposes - identifying the actor falls well within that scope.
I cannot give permission for the file to be modified or for derivative works to be made from the file, so *if I'm reading the various copyright and licensing agreements correctly*, there weren't any "free" use licenses which would be appropriate. I am putting the image back in the website and I'll check back over the next few days to see if there's discussion. LynnMaudlin ( talk) 05:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This image was never given a license by the author, though other photos from the same set were tagged PD-self; another user added PD-self. Should we consider it PD-self, then? I nominated this image for deletion ( Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_April_21#File:Ukraine_085.jpg), but the nomination was closed as keep. — innotata 17:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This image at flickr.com is licensed under CC-BY, but I am wondering, if they are really the copyright holder. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilettes ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
hi i just wanted to know if i can upload the screen shot of any place using google maps if so under which licence?
regards kp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladiatorkp ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Hound d'artois3.jpg is tagged as {{ PD-self}}. Unless the uploader of this work is more than 130 years old, he/she cannot be the copyright holder of this work (unless, of course, the copyright was passed down within the family). Should this be {{ PD-Art}} instead? Logan Talk Contributions 21:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Are the videos uploaded at http://www.youtube.com/user/usnationalarchives allowed to be uploaded to Wikipedia for use? I am assuming yes, based on this article: Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. There is a video uploaded there (a very long one) that I would like to take an excerpt from (a few minutes). Is this possible? And if so, what would be the license tag? -- Dara ( talk) 01:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Would we be able to upload screenshots from videos released by the CIA showing images of Bin Laden? See VOA Bin Laden pics. The videos were seized by the US Government, would they not be similar to ones taken by the US and administered by the Alien Property Custodian in the World Wars? If not, would the copyright be held by Bin Laden? Oaktree b ( talk) 02:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I am working on an education mobile application to assist people in identifying and providing information on various things found in nature. For example, the user will be able to search through a listing of various trees based on a search criteria (location, leaf type, etc.) and when they finally get to the tree they want, they can display a "details" page on the tree they interested in. On this details page I would like to include an image of the tree and a description of the tree.
As an example, say the user would like more information on the eastern cottonwood ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populus_deltoides). There are two ways that I'm looking at using the data provided on the above linked page:
1. A line-for-line copy of a paragraph from the "Ecology" section, as follows "It needs bare soil and full sun for successful germination and establishment; in natural conditions, it usually grows near rivers, with mud banks left after floods providing ideal conditions for seedling germination; human soil cultivation has allowed it to increase its range away from such habitats."
2. Re-working the content, for example, having a heading of "Age" and then just listing "70 to 100 years (potentially 200 to 400 years)" rather than using the entire "Age" section paragraph of "Eastern cottonwoods typically live 70 to 100 years, but they have the potential to live 200 to 400 years if they have good genetics, and if they have a good growing environment."
As long as the content I'm using is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, and as long as I follow the procedure for properly displaying the CC and attribution information for what I'm using, am I OK using the content in my app as I propose above?
I am also wondering — since the content I will be including in my app will be a combination of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licenses materials and non-CC copyright materials (content provided to me from other sources), with regards to the ShareAlike licensing, does that mean my entire application has to be made available under the CC ShareAlike license, or just the specific material I'm using that has been provided to me under the CC ShareAlike license?
Any insight into this would be much appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboyk ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I have read that (a few times now) and I assume that I am OK in using the content in both ways I want to use that data (as I'm using it sometimes verbatim and sometimes modified), but I'm just hoping for a confirmation on this before I begin to compile all the data.
As well, I am still unsure (after reading documents here and on the Creative Commons site) as to whether or not the complete application I'm working on that needs to be released under the CC Share Alike license, or just that the content that was previously CC Share Alike need to be displayed as CC Share Alike for continued use by others?
Again, I have made assumptions that I'm OK to use that data as I stated and that I don't need to release the entire app under CC Share Alike (since it would conflict with the copyright of other data used in the app), but before I go through all the work of compiling and organizing the data and copyright information for everything, and actually building the app based on this data, I'm just hoping for something a little more solid beyond my own assumptions and understanding of all these rules from someone with more knowledge of it all that what I have. Theboyk ( talk) 16:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to include this picture, but I'm not sure about the copyright and how to tag it. It should be public domain because it is a work of public university.
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=6269.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictien ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I am a professional aviation photographer and have added a number of pictures but I got a warning on a few of them. I have now added the information that I photographed them myself. Could you check this out? Is it OK now?
Will the warnings disappear now? Have I avoided the deletion?
Pls come back to me on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brorsson ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, these look fine now. At the time I tagged them it wasn't clear from the description that you took them yourself, and unfortunately we've often had cases where people uploaded just these types of images under false licensing claims, so we have to be a bit cautious about them. Thank you very much for your contributions; these are great and valuable images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello experts,
I am simultaneously working on two articles that could benefit from illustrations. They're at WP:SDA/PUCPresidents and WP:SDA/LSUPresidents. I notice that File:UF00031408.jpg has permissions for use based on being published before a certain date (1923). Could the first picture from this and the first ten or so pictures from this be used under a similar permission? I realize the date of publishing isn't on them, but it seems like a fair assumption that those pictures from the 1800s were published before 1923. If someone could take a look and let me know, that would be great! BelloWello ( talk) 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I have some doubt about Signature of popular living people. Are signature is public domain material or can any one upload signature of any popular living people like politician claming that his work??
see the list of Signature of India Politician by User:GaneshBhakt. - Jayanta Nath ( Talk| Contrb) 09:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
If I post a BRITISH photo from the 1930's, with no authorship, then that is OK, for by law it is out of copyright, being over 70 years ago. The wikipedia has a tag allowing for that. I know this will come as a surprise to a number of editors (some of which use idiotbots) but Britain is NOT a colony of America. If something is out of copyright in Britain it is nothing at all to do with America. Not a thing. British copyright means British copyright. If they mean American copyright, they will say American copyright and not British copyright. If you do not understand the long words I have used here, leave me a note on my "Talk" and I will try to simplify it even further. Meanwhile, please stop vandalising my work.( Cyberia3 ( talk) 20:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC))
An artist composed a portrait of my grandfather in 1956. The portrait was given to my family and I am now the sole owner. Does the artist still own the copyright or do I? Also, if the artist still owns the copyright, am I allowed to reproduce the portrait electronically for non commercial purposes (i.e. on Wikipedia)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottoconnor ( talk • contribs) 11:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it fair use to use the logo of a political party outside of wikipedia article specifically about the political party itself, e.g. for an article about an election the party participated in? For example, using File:Miljöpartiet.svg on Swedish general election, 2014? — VikingViolinist | Talk 12:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Does this copyright statement mean we can use the images on Wikipedia? GaneshBhakt ( talk) 12:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Can we make vector graphics with newspaper diagrams/maps as the source? GaneshBhakt ( talk) 14:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I've received the following message from Magog the Ogre( talk):
Images from the official White House's Flickr account use the Flickr license Work of the U.S. Government, that links to http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml, that, to my understanding, states the images are in the public domain.
However, the image's captions on Flickr include the shivering statement:
“ | The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House. | ” |
— The White House, Flickr.com |
While I understand that the second part, the only beginning with "and may not be used in commercial or..." is restricted by "in any way suggests approval", and thus is not a copyright issue, the first part, seems to prohibit the image to be manipulated. This clashes with http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml explicitly allowing to "create derivative works".
Should we care about what is said on the images captions at Flickr? -- Damiens.rf 19:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, perhaps by taking the image from the website, downloaders bind themselves to terms and conditions. None of which binds Wikipedia, or course, as that would be a contract, not a copyright matter.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
“ |
Thank you for uploading File:Aliger costatus.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged. If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre( talk) 11:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC) |
” |
The image in question was given to me by a friend, who has a
Lobatus costatus in her aquarium. She gave me permition to use it as I see fit, and It's clearly not professional work. What is necessary to regularize this picture? Thanks in advance and best wishes. --
Daniel Cavallari (
talk)
21:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia (but not Commons) allows works to be included here whenever they are in the public domain in the USA (e.g. {{ PD-US}}), even in cases where the work isn't free in it's country of origin (see: Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights).
That's all well and good. Now for the complicated part. How do we tag / identify / process / etc. a work that is a derivative work of something that is public domain in the USA but not elsewhere. For example, suppose I've made a photographic comparison of a street in 1913 Berlin to the same street in modern day. The old image is PD in the US (published pre-1923), but in Germany because the photographer died less than 70 years ago it would still be under copyright. Suppose further that the new image is original, and I would want to license the whole thing CC-BY-SA.
Under US law it would seem that I am entitled to do that. Under German law, it would seem that I would need permission to do that. Since Wikipedia follows US law, it would seem that I am allowed to use the composite work here.
However, how would one tag such an image, and how would one go about warning reusers that it might not be free outside the US? Dragons flight ( talk) 22:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Is the Renaissance Lute image in use in Lute from Britannica? Query on the talk page. Lantrix // Talk// Contrib// 11:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Earsdon 1910.jpg was, as you might guess, taken in 1910, so I think it's out of copyright in the U.S. But it has a more expansive tag that says it is out of copyright even in countries that specify Life-of-author+100, which isn't true. I'm a novice on image tagging. Ma t c hups 19:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that I've created a new copyright template at Template:PD-ad based on this conversation. Before it becomes widely used, I thought I'd best get feedback in case there is some nuance I am missing, and you guys seem like the best people to approach about it. :D -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, the use of this justification is not new to WP. What brought it to my attention was a question I'd asked here in February and the reply. The file in question was changed as a result of it. Checking just a bit further, I see that the editor who provided it had been using it since at least 2009: File:SWTPC 6800 Computer Oct 1977.jpg File:MITS Calculator 908DM 1974.jpg Have no idea how many others have also used it. We hope ( talk) 02:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey, we've had a discussion going at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Removing of rank images from rank pages, and we need the expertise of somebody well-versed in the copyright laws of the UK and Sri Lanka. Essentially, we want to make free versions of military rank insignia to avoid concerns of overuse of the fair-use portion of the NFCC. However, we aren't sure if we can redraw them and release them into the PD, or if we would simply be making derivative works that are still copywritten. Since the discussion petered out a couple days ago, I was hoping some experts could visit there and weigh in if we can do this. bahamut0013 words deeds 21:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd like for someone to weigh in on File:Moebiusband wikipedia animation.ogg, which uses the Wikipedia logo as the texture of the surface in the animation. Does this mean that the image has to be changed or is this a licensing issue? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
how is giraffe pelli and me the same as other roald darl books and how is it different ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.185.216 ( talk) 07:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
What is a copyright license? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJMP617 ( talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
For a article about MATIS Group I wrote an inquiry to the company whether I could use one of their logos for a wikipedia article. They sent me the one I uploaded under File:MATIS_Groupe.jpg per mail and told me that it is OK to be published. So now there is no Internet source I could cite nor can it be found elsewhere in the Internet and the file is tagged for deletion. What to do? Many thanks in advance.
BarbecueAndPanacotta ( talk) 22:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, i've been editing Wikipedia 4 almost 2 ms. In fact, I've already edited more than 15 articles, yet I haven't contributed even 1 photo for editing some articles because of lack of copyright 2 tag a photo. How could I acquire my copyright so I could tag a photo 2 editing an article? Marco Bisnar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco bisnar ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi I recently uploaded File:Megatron in Dark of the Moon.png and I can't seem to find the right lisence for it, can someone please put a lisence on the image please as I don't know which would suit it best. Thanks. Dr Eggman12 18:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi i added the logo of LogicalDOC File:Ldoc_logo.png. Please can you write me what i have to do now to get this file accepted by Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprmw7 ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I am an intern for a company that would like to have a Wikipedia entry created for them, I am trying to figure hou how to add their logo to the info box without making it a public image. They have a copyright on the image but I have their permission to use it on their wiki page. How would I go aobut adding the picture? Mr.Gaebrial ( talk)Mr.Gaebrial —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC).
FYI, you can edit, but you need to be careful about doing so. Make sure it meets our criteria for inclusion and neutrality and you can write it. Please contact me on my talk page if you need assistance. I'll be happy to help. — BQZip01 — talk 06:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Can't seem to get the copyright added to a picture that has been added to a friends page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leicapic ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The book name is called "Time Bomb," and I need it for an article I'm making for the book. Booyahhayoob ( talk) 21:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I am a user, working on my first article and I want to upload photo images I took and I own related to my subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libraartistmgnt ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but merely out of curiosity, if an image is uploaded to Commons from Flickr and licensed BY or BY-SA, are any professional media outlets allowed to use this image in their articles, including journals, magazines, etc? – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 04:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a copyright question at User talk:John Tewkesbury which I'm not competent to answer.
The text at User:John Tewkesbury is a reworked copy of a piece previously published by the Tewkesbury Historical Society - see the contributor's explanation at EAR. Comparing the email address accidentally posted here and at the bottom of this THS web page, it's clear that John Tewkesbury ( talk · contribs) is the president of the THS.
What is the next question to ask him? Could an expert please join in the thread at User talk:John Tewkesbury? -- John of Reading ( talk) 08:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I have used this image in the RAF Northolt article - File:RAF Northolt aerial view 1917.jpg - under the non-free Crown Copyright licencing as it came from a book produced by the Royal Air Force under Crown Copyright. It has been suggested that as it was most likely to have been produced by the British government in 1917, it actually qualifies for {{ PD-BritishGov}} instead. Is this correct, or should it remain under Crown Copyright? Harrison49 ( talk) 12:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Everyone :)
I was just wondering, would I be allowed to upload a screenshot from Google Maps? The picture is for the Westfield Southland article. Thank You. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 12:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Please forgive me for going on and on about this, but one of the respondents above is not experienced in copyright, so I'd like to continue examining this question. Let me come at this question from another angle, and then maybe we can eventually understand that this video is free of copyright and free to use. Therefore, it should be free to link to from a WP article. New tack: Is it permissible to link to a video B-roll without bringing up the copyright question? For the people here, a B-roll refers to footage provided free of charge to broadcast news organizations as a means of gaining free publicity. For example, an automobile maker might shoot a video of its assembly line, hoping that segments will be used in stories about the new model year. B-roll sometimes makes its way into stock footage libraries (and therefore free to pass around from one user to another). This B-roll has been around for at least 15 years, and it's labelled as a "B-roll" at the beginning of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6_1o_FxsNs&feature=related . However, in this question I am asking about the video as a B-roll, not as a "free for commercial use" video. In other words, this video states in different ways that the world can use it for whatever purpose, but this question is just from the B-roll perspective. Thanks! Santamoly ( talk) 04:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
{{ PD-Pre1978}} and {{ PD-US-no notice}} are currently very similar. I think {{ PD-Pre1978}} is not a good name. {{ PD-US-no notice}} should cover until March 1, 1989. John Vandenberg ( chat) 04:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I upload logo of vitoria riboque i dont know how to add copyright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salah44 ( talk • contribs) 12:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is logo File:Vitoria_Riboque.jpg photo is property of club today created —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salah44 ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Can somebody update me on our current practices regarding issues of lack of "freedom of panorama" in foreign countries of origin please. If I take a photograph of a modern copyrighted work of architecture, in a country where such photographs, according to local law, would be considered to be derivatives under the copyright of the architect (e.g. France), but in a way that would be free according to the "freedom of panorama" rules of the US, and if I then publish that photograph in the US (e.g. by posting it on Wikipedia): does US law still protect the foreign copyright, or can I validly release it?
I know, of course, that Commons rejects such images, because they insist an image must be free both in the US and in the country of origin (see commons:Commons:FOP).
The issue is that if we take the same stance as Commons and refuse to accept these as free files, we could then accept non-free alternatives (e.g. non-free photographs published by the architect). If we take the stance that free self-made photographs are possible, non-free files are out. Currently an issue here.
{{ AutoReplaceable fair use buildings}} does list among possible NFCC reasons "that the building is located in a country where photographs of buildings are considered derivative of the building's copyright", so it would appear we should reject the free files. But I've seen at least one fellow administrator here on en-wiki rejecting a deletion tag in such a case with the argument that only US law counts here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
[:File:Varroa_on_larvae.jpg]
I am confused as to the permission requirements I believe I am to list attibution - yet cannot find a person/organistion to attibute it to. Is this picture a wiki picture? or does in belong to "pollinator" who does not seem to have an info...
Many thanks liz.rohonczy@inspection.gc.ca
Hello, I'd like to upload a couple of images to illustrate the articles Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) and Sylph (Dungeons & Dragons). I haven't done anything like this before, and need some advice on how to do it properly and avoid getting the images deleted for copyright reasons. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 00:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sir / Madam,
I am a Professor at the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India actively engaged in teaching and research in the area of CAD/CAM and Manufacturing Engg for the past 30 years.
I have been writing a textbook on Computer Graphics and Product Modeling for CAD/CAM for the Senior UG and Graduate students and practicing engineers. I wanted to include a Figure to explain the concept of projections. viz some classical paintings from artist who had used the technique of perspective projection I am listing below the url for the Fig. for your kind reference which I have taken from Wikipaedia.
File:Piazza_San_Marco_with_the_Basilica,_by_Canaletto,_1730._Fogg_Art_Museum,_Cambridge.jpg
May I request you to kindly accord permission for the use of this Fig for the purpose of inclusion in the Textbook. I have included the relevant reference to the Wikipaedia and the url below the Fig. In case you wish that I use some other similar Fig / painting , kindly arrange to send me the same.Any guidance in the matter will be greatly appreciated.
Awaiting your kind reply.
Best regards
Sincerely
Prof. S. S. Pande Mechanical Eng. Dept. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay Powai, Mumbai 400076, India
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.23.4 ( talk) 04:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The following link is Part 1 of 6 videos published as one video by Suzuki America during their lawsuit with Consumer Reports:
15 seconds into the video, it states clearly, in print on screen: "Permission is granted to use excerpts for commercial broadcast or print". After the lawsuit was settled, Suzuki America took down the video and it's now on YouTube. Part of the lawsuit settlement was that neither party would discuss the issue. Is it permissible to link to the video from a WP article on this subject? Santamoly ( talk) 08:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The video appears to have been uploaded to YouTube by someone who isn't the copyright owner. I think it's therefore wise to assume, unless proven otherwise, that it's a copyright violation, and therefore covered by WP:ELNEVER. Wikipedia should not link to it. —Tim Pierce ( talk) 14:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the File:Persian Gulf by Gamal Abdel Nasser.jpg there was a discussion in FFD. Egypt's Intellectual Property Law 82 of 2002 states that there is no copyright protection for "Official documents, whatever their source or target language, such as laws, regulations, resolutions and decisions, international conventions, court decisions, award of arbitrators and decisions of administrative committees having judicial competence." Now the question is that isn't a sitting president's sealed/stamped letter, an official document of the state? The term used in that law to describe those items is "such as" which is language used to cite examples, not to set a condition of exclusivity. So my reading is that other official documents like the sitting president's sealed/stamped letter also can be considered as an official document. What is your opinion on this matter? -- Wayiran ( talk) 07:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, a user has added this picture, I have had a small discussion with them as seen User_talk:Acnaren#Arunachala_Nithya_acnaren_2010.jpg - I have the feeling from the users comments that there is no evidence of permission and that the user can't release the pic under a commons license without it? Off2riorob ( talk) 07:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I tried to add one of the photographs I took of Barrells Hall, but it says I need to tag it?
Tedzwedz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedzwedz ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
This logo represents the Gabber music:
But the image is probably copyrighted. Has somebody sources about this information? Please, tell me if there is a better place to ask this question. Ftiercel ( talk) 17:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this a copyright violation? doomgaze (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Portrait of a Man in a Turban (Jan van Eyck) with frame.jpg has a frame that is, according to our article at
Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?), a part of the artist's painting. The artist even painted on the frame to make the inscription look carved. I am not an expert on this—I will point one or more knowledgeable users to this discussion should they have anything to add—but I am assuming the frame dates back to 1433, when the painting was created. Is there any special PD tag that needs to be used here? Presumably, the YorckProject PD tag, which specifically states, "art depicted in this image", could cover the licensing for the frame, correct? But the PD-Art tag refers to a two-dimensional artwork, hence my confusion. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁
gala
xies
10:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
For use of images for living people, can Facebook images like these be accepted? Or can pictures from pages like Baidu (which have a creative common license) be used? Please contact me on my talk page. Thanks!-- Lionratz ( talk) 03:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I created both of the images I uploaded but i think I chose the wrong tag to place within the description...I need some help getting these things write or it will get deleted ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceepub ( talk • contribs) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Note that this user has been blocked, as it was a role account for Jae E's publicity company, Icee Publicity. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a photo (original) given to my grandfather (Richard Chapman) that was taken aboard a cruse liner (Cunard) in 1951.
Cunard is British-American company.
The back of the photo has a stamp that says:
Cunard Line Photo By W.A. No Charge For
I want to post this photo, which I own, on his Wikipedia profile.
In terms of a licensing "tag", what category would this fall under?
Thanks in advance!! RchapmanIII ( talk) 01:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This is our own photograph taken of our own anamorphic art. Lots of instructions are out there, but none seems appropriate for this situation. Please help with clear, concise directions. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrna Hoffman ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to upload an image to File:Y2K_Hosts_in_digital_sets.jpg for the article Y2K – World in Crisis at: [6]. It is of a screenshot sent me by the creator of the series, Warren Chaney. I believe it qualifies for fair use and is of low resolution. However, if need be - I can obtain permission. I thought I had answered all relevant questions but continue to get "need info" comments. After several attempts, I was afraid I may be making matters worse, hence the request for help. Thank you very much. Sinclairindex Sinclairindex ( talk) 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I finally figured out the problem and was able to load the image. I suspect that the problem was me, not the system. I appreciate the help. Sinclairindex ( talk) 16:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I have all the times problems in uploading an image file. Wikipedia is not co-operating me at all. I dont know why? Krantmlverma ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC).
A book has a photo of an old painting in it. If I was to scan just the photo of the painting, what sort of copyright issues arise and what tags would be appropriate? I'm assuming that the artist is no longer alive but presumably the author/puiblisher of the book might have some copyright on the image. I presume that "worst case" would under fair use provided a satisfactory fair use claim could be made. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 11:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I am attempting to have permissions sent of several images used in two articles but the company forward the permissions states that the permission address (permissions-commonswikimedia.org) fails to go through - always returning an "error" message. I tried with an email and also received an error message.
Is there an alternate email site that they may use? If so, I will forward it to them.
Thanks, Sinclairindex ( talk) 13:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Um, yeah, Shia LaBeouf's mug shot will be deleted in a matter of days, and I don't know how to get the license, I mean, I got the picture from Google, so if that helps tell me. So contact me as soon as possible about all this and hit me back as soon as you can. Thanks. RoadHouse ( talk) 21:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The people at help desk pointed me to here. The question is at WP:Help desk#School hymn copyright. Moray An Par ( talk) 00:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
An IP user recently removed File:Labret phallic coddling.jpg from the article Point of view pornography and expressed concerns about a) the age of the person depicted, and b) the consent of the person depicted. Regarding the age of the one performing, it seems borderline (although other opinions would be welcome). However, is the person depicted's explicit permission necessary for a use of the file, or should we keep using it (as long as the person depicted is of legal age) per WP:NOTCENSORED? Sorry if this is the wrong forum; I am not sure where to go; User:Fetchcomms suggested I go here. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Pistol of Azad2699.jpeg Please let me know under what licensing re-use I can upload this file. Krantmlverma ( talk) 08:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC) The person died in 1931 his pistol in kept in the Allahabad Museum. I have taken it's image from a photo published in some of the book published long ago. It's author Ram Krishna khatri had presented this book to me. That book is in my own library. Krantmlverma ( talk) 08:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I am helping to make a wiki all about "Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective". I am thinking about copying the article about "Sissel (Ghost Trick)" and pasting it into the "Sissel" article on the Ghost Trick Wiki. My question is "Is this action okay for me to do?" Please answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiiGuy999 ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! I was just wandering if I can put an image of Haley Reinhart for her profile on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philiponi ( talk • contribs) 21:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I made a page a few years ago for Mathias Anderle...adding a photograph that I took of him which was removed because I didn't do it right or whatever. I am trying to figure out how to add another photo and it's very confusing to me. I just uploaded a more recent photo to the "commons" but I don't know how to tag it as a picture that I took and am willing to share with the world. I saw something earlier about that but after spending about an hour looking for the instructions I cannot find them again. If someone can help I would appreciate it. I am not computer/internet savvy so please explain it in kindergarten terms if you can.
Thanks,
Martha (gohuskies77) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohuskies77 ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
For countries, such as the Philippines, which doesn't have freedom of panorama, does it extend to the interior of the building? Say the facade of the opera house cannot be uploaded here as a free image due to lack of FOP, but can a photo took by myself of a musical performance inside the opera house itself be free? Moray An Par ( talk) 02:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I've seen the following document spread in many articles in many languages, however, my most concern is that a large number of internet websites refer to this document on Wikipedia as an accurate source. Wikipedia's reputation is all of our first priority, and I don't see any details about the source of the document. Any fatwa always contains examples and references, so I highly consider this document manipulated; as such a large Scholarly university never made such a claim. Can anyone please verify its copyright! ~ AdvertAdam talk 02:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking that there is not sufficient justification for the use of the copyright cast photo in this cast listing section, correct? Kristine_(TV_series)#Cast_and_Characters Active Banana (bananaphone 03:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Hopefully, I'm asking my question in the right section. I'm the author and designer of the TV logo File:Sidewalks-logo.png and I gave permission for the logo to be used on Wiki. When I did it back in 2006, I listed the image as "public domain." I would like to change it to a copyright tag or some other copyright tag that could be used for a TV logo. Can anybody help me with this? I don't want to change the copyright on my own.
Tvdir ( talk) 23:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you check my uploaded images now to be sure they have enough copyright info as to not be deleted? The wikipedia entry I wrote is for Maurice Bebb and I uploaded 3 images there. I received a bot message and went back to add the copyright line "copyright The Estate of MR Bebb" Is this enough info now? thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Printmkr ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Simply put, I want to upload an image from a 1948 issue of Astounding Stories to illustrate the article on " The Mule", an important character in Asimov's Foundation series. The article is currently illustrated by a 1960s paperback book cover, which bears little similarity to the character as actually described by the author (and probably lacks an appropriate rationale for use in this article). The "non-free character" template does not apply, because that covers only characters from visual media. The character's physical appearance is discussed in the article, and is (in-universe) a significant plot point. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
CC-BY(-SA) allows for remixing and adapting, two words used by CC in their license ( [7]), but I haven't been able to find what kind of remixing is allowed. In fact, the word "remix" kind of confuses me. Is there a point where images can be too altered? Anyway, my question is this: if there is an image of a currently-living celebrity and their eyes are looking in a ridiculous direction, but otherwise the portrait is fine—and were the image licensed as CC-BY and uploaded to Commons—would I be in my right to "move" the eyes and have them looking in a more natural position, like at the camera? I'm curious if this is allowed within CC (and even BLP) jurisdiction. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 03:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hashkjldfafhnjsghksdfbvgkerhtfklsfdhgjsklgs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.7.77 ( talk) 06:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
When the Eisenhower dollar was under consideration in 1969, Krause Publications (they do hobby newspapers) made a mockup of what it might look like, to be found here. They combined the portrait from the Eisenhower presidential medal struck by the Mint, unquestionably PD, with the lettering from the Franklin half dollar also undoubtedly PD, and tweaked the date slightly (probably used the first three digits from a 1960 to 1963 half's date with a "9" taken from a 1949 or 1959 half). Is the resultant work in the public domain? Keep in mind it is not three dimensional, as this "coin" was never struck, they just did the 1969 version of Photoshop.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 04:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"... If the already existing work is in the public domain ... then only the new material that’s been added to it is entitled to copyright protection. The original work remains in the public domain. Just remember that the new material added by the derivative author is not in the public domain."
Can I upload screen captures from the video and PDF from this site: http://www.amisom-au.org/article-84 It says "RESTRICTIONS: NONE" Hamza-nor ( talk) 19:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Specifically, File:Nigger and pink cardigan in UK magazine advert circa 1948.jpg in the article Nigger. I added the image to the article to illustrate a British usage of that word which appears to have been considered quite acceptable at the time but obviously would not be nowadays. Another editor reverted and said that the fair use rationale does not cover that use of that image. I would contend that it does because it is the advertisement itself and its use of that word which is the subject of commentary, and for the reasons explained in the fair use rationale, but since this unusual case could be something of a grey area which is not described in current guidelines I would appreciate some additional opinions on the matter. Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 00:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. In the UK, a separate copyright notice in the ad itself is not required for it to be copyright: however, if no creator is identified the copyright expires 70 years after publication (as opposed to 70 years after their death if the photographer and/or designer(s) were identified), so it seems I can't use this till 2019. In the meantime I'll put a mention in the article with a citation, though it would work better with the picture so I'll put a note in my diary for 1st January 2019 :-) Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 20:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear sir I have tried to add the photo to the article 'Mohammad Najatuallah Siddiqui', but the same has not been added.It is because of copyright. I have personally talked to the economist in this regard and he has no objection to add the photo in the article. If you still have any objection in this regard, the economist (Najatuallah Siddiqui ) told me to contact him on "(email removed fro privacy)". As we do not no HTML well, so it becomes difficult for us to add the photo in right way. Thanking you one again Sana_commerce28 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sana commerce28 ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I recently ( boldly) uploaded this picture to the Commons. It is a Photoshopped combination (i.e. derived work) of two screenshots from The Seven Year Itch's trailer, which seems to be in public domain because it was released prior to 1964 and never copyrighted separately; therefore, the chance to register it for copyright has expired (1955 + 28 = 1983). I am basing my reasoning off of a couple other The Seven Year Itch uploads by other editors and this site. Could someone take a look and let me know what they think about the status of the trailer? Should it be on Commons? Thanks. This was copied and pasted here from User:Moonriddengirl's talk page per her suggestion Crisco 1492 ( talk) 15:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Can an image of a historically important dead person be used in a Wikipedia article specifically about that person if the image is low resolution and cropped? Doesn't this meet Fair Use rules covered by U.S. law and Wikipedia policy for using Fair Use images?-- Orygun ( talk) 15:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a useful, simple diagram that I'd like to use that's from someone's thesis in The University of Melbourne in Australia, but I'm not quite sure about the copyright policy with theses from other countries. Can I upload the picture without contacting the author or university? Is it not enough to give him credit and reference his thesis? Here's a link to his thesis: Interfacial Effects on Aqueous Sonochemistry and Sonoluminescence -- Aolzick ( talk) 23:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)