![]() | 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 have requested permission toward Reuters to use the photo of Aaron Spelling ( http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/13464007/ns/today-entertainment/t/tv-innovator-aaron-spelling-dies/). Reuters said that this such usage in Wikipedia is fair use, which counts as permission from Reuters, despite #7 of the WP:NFC#UUI. However, I wonder if this such use is all right. What do you say? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Can I uploade this photo to Wikipedia right now? I cannot hold on any longer. I haven't contacted Soundvisions1 yet because he is occasionally or seldom active. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an uncommon case. It's always been my impression that most of the large commercial image providers would be rather unwilling to recognize our use of their material as legitimate fair use. In some cases, I believe we have rather explicit statements from them to this effect (don't remember if that was from Getty or some other similar company). For that reason, such a statement encouraging us to invoke fair use on their stuff would be rather surprising. I'd certainly want to see the exact correspondence before I can comment further. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to use a tennis image from Boston Public Library's Flickr account on Wikipedia. In the license section it mentions 'Some rights reserved' with a Creative Commons license and conditions BY-NC-ND 2.0. Do I interpret this correctly as meaning that I'm allowed to use this image (and others with the same CC conditions) on Wikipedia/Wikimedia as long as I A) make the proper attribution "(Courtesy of the Boston Public Library, Leslie Jones Collection.)" and B) don't alter it? If this is the case, how strict is the 'No Derivative Works' condition? Can I remove a small black border from the image to make it better suitable for a Wikipedia article or do I have to use it 'as is'? Finally, should I upload this to Wikipedia (en) or Wikimedia (or both) and what is the difference? Haven't uploaded an image here before and want to make sure I get this right (and don't end up in Guantanamo). Thx. -- Wolbo ( talk) 22:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you instruct me on how to upload an image to wikipedia from my iPad 2. Do you guys have a mobil website where i can use the iPad 2 to upload a picture to the Peyton List article. They havent uploaded a picture to the Peyton List Article since 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by The VJJ ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if this is slightly away from a copyright question; if you have a better place for me to ask I'd be happy to. Regarding OTRS ticket 2012042710010061, which I will generally and anonymously describe here, there is a case where photos from a private cemetery--including headstones and other personally identifying details--are being objected to on privacy grounds. The photographs were taken freely, but violated the cemetery's privacy policy which explicitly prohibits unauthorized photography. Is there any reason we would not take down these photographs; do we have any legal or policy right to keep using them? The files are hosted on Commons but used in articles on Wikipedia. Thanks for your help. Ocaasi t | c 15:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm uploading a screenshot of a bug in the WP:AfC script. It is a free image made by me, but it has both the Wikipedia logo and the Firefox logo visible on it. Can I upload it? Should I blur the logos first? Thanks! -- Nathan2055 talk 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I received this image directly from the person who owns the image (Brenda Dixon Gottschild). I inserted the photo credit (Lonnie Graham) but I do not have copyright information. Is copyright information still necessary if the image is from the owner and if so how do I go about getting the information for copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heidiliu8 ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The articles linked from List of UN numbers appear to exclusively contain material from UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, which is copyright 2001 United Nations Publications and has no apparent public license. The only reason I didn't immediately mass nominate these articles for deletion was to inquire here. Does this appear to be copyright violation or fair use? What is the best course of action? -- beefyt ( talk) 19:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I have just uploaded three images to the Miss United States page: File:missuslogo.jpg, File:missus11.jpg, and File:missus04.jpg. These images belong to the Miss United States Organization, of which I am a member of the Board of Directors. What information should I place in the descriptions to show that I have the right to use these images? Asmit12295 ( talk) 21:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmit12295 ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, we have a request at WP:FFU requesting uploading a SVG version of the existing File:Smoke on the Water riff.jpg, see also Wikipedia:Files for upload/January 2015#Smoke on the Water riff. Can we simply replace the file (upload the svg, deleting the jpg) or do we have to care any copyright problems by the creator of the SVG? mabdul 21:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Can someone explain the copyright status of this image:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Heinkel/Aero57G4.htm
It was taken in 1939 (its on the day of the flight of the He 178, 12 August 1939). Reading the article on German photography here on the Wiki, it appears that the term is infinite, which seems suspect.
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 18:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm still confused. Let's try this: can I post this photo or not, and if I can, how do I tag it? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 11:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This speculation does not seem to help me make a decision. Can anyone else weight in? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 11:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I have received a PDF from the organization Braille Without Borders, containing the basics of the Tibetan braille standard. The document "TIBETAN BRAILLE SCRIPT.pdf" restrictions are Printing, Content Copying, Copying for Accessibility, Page Extraction, and Filling of Form fields all allowed; Document Assembly, Commenting, Signing, and Creation of Template Pages not allowed. It has no other copyright, restriction, or other pertinent document tagging. This document is not posted anywhere on the internet, nor is its information otherwise known to be available. It is the only document I was able to cite for the article Tibetan braille. My question: Is this document acceptable for upload, either in its native PDF format, or as a low-res screen capture? The citation questions I will take to the RS board. Van Isaac WS contribs 06:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
i am new , so just wanted to know how i can help wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimalhotra ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
This screenshot is used at Hollywood Sign, but since it does not illustrate anything substantive in the article (just a brief bullet point in the Use in popular culture section) I believe it does not qualify for fair use inclusion. Seeking a second opinion. - RunningOnBrains( talk) 22:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this image? It was recently upload to commons. The user admits they they are a student (see User talk:Jetulacka#Images) and that this was done as part of a school project. I suspect that they were ignorant of copyright at the time of upload and that it was merely copied from the web. The source is a NPS website [2]. On that page, the image is labelled as "NPS Photo by Paul Horsted". It might be that this image is a government image and is fine; but, I have seen other images on NPS websites that are labeled as NPS images with an artist that were copyrighted. I need someone with more experience at handling these things to take a look at it. Thanks. WTucker ( talk) 01:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I'm really confused about font copyrights. According to Arial, Arial is a proprietary font, whose copyrights are owned by Monotype Imaging. I heard from a professor that Arial was a free alternative to Helvetica, which itself was a copyrighted font (so I guess he's wrong). But when I see fonts used in logos and images, like at File:Nirvana_album_cover.svg, they almost always have a "does not meet threshold of originality" tag (I say almost because there may be fonts that do meet this threshold, but I have yet to see it). So fonts can be copyrighted... but can't be? In regards to simple geometric shapes and fonts, then why is this ("Conan" logo) considered copyrighted? Is the hair shape that original? Thanks so much. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 07:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this logo still copyrighted or ineligible? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The above files have the text and windows logo. Are they eligible for copyrights? -- George Ho ( talk) 13:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this file eligible for copyrights? -- George Ho ( talk) 14:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Are these above logos eligible for copyrights? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I have changed both descriptions. --
George Ho (
talk)
18:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
An editor obtained a photograph from this site:
http://nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.cfm?med_id=64599&from=img
uploaded it as: File:ScalopusAquaticus.jpg
with the license: {{ PD-USGov}}
However, I do not believe the National Science Foundation is considered part of the US Government for this purpose.
Can someone confirm or deny?
The photographer has contacted Wikimedia and I want to make sure of my facts before responding.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Is everything in a US patient copyrighted? How can information in a US patient be incorporated into a Wikipedia article? 157.22.42.3 ( talk) 02:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I've uploaded some photos which I'd like to add to a band page called coldrain. I was confused on how to add the source as Wikipedia keeps telling me that the images are missing copyright status or source. How do I add this information to the image description page?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SR-wonder ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been asked to upload a combined image of a logo and a trademark for Asüna automobiles. I believe either would be okay to upload under fair use, but can a combined image be as well, or do they have to be separate?
Thanks! Ocaasi t | c 19:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I am working on an article for the company peace coffee with another editor and I would like to reference the company's bio-diesel van. If I found a free image (or took one myself) of this van, can I use it or is it still copyrighted because of the design on the van? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I want to create a Wikipedia Page about a mathematical simulation model which was developed and is worked with at the Institute I am working for. On the Institutes homepage you can already find some information about it. My mistake was, that I copied some sentences of the website, which is a copyright issue - so the page was deleted. The thing is that I have the permission of the website owner/developer to copy those sentences (I am part of the Institute). Is there any possibility to make this clear to the reviewers?? Do I really have to change every sentence, to not violate any copyright criteria?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffffaul ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
new to this, so please forgive my mistakes. I've uploaded a photo File:Ria_Zmitrowicz.jpg and asked the person who I thought was relevant for the copyright info. But upon further investigation, it is fairly clear that the photo was taken by someone else. So I've emailed the correct person. The problem that I'm having working out what to do is: how to update the file description / delete it before the correct copyright info is returned from the relevant person.
All the best,
Spider23 ( talk) 14:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
14:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider23 ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikimedia received an inquiry about the copyright status of a document. I promised to check with the experts here to find out whether it can be considered pd, or if licensing is needed, exactly what steps are required.
The document is a 165 page memoir of WW II Experiences
It was written in 1966, with no indications of copyright, and the author passed away in 1967.
My understanding of copyright is that currently, all materials are automatically subject to copyright unless licensed otherwise, but this has not always been true. If I read correctly, with a 1966 creation date (prior to 1989), the material is not considered copywritten unless the author uses a copyright notice.
I also recently learned that publication date is different than creation date and can be relevant. This material was never published.
The material is in the control of a relative, who presumably has the authority to provide a license if that is what is needed.
The material was originally added to a Wikipedia article along with some images, but all were removed because copyright issues were not clear. I've resolved the copyright issues on the images, but now want to address the status of the text.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this strictly forbidden, even when accompanied by critical commentary of an important role in their career? BollyJeff || talk 11:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The looks should be attributed only to the make-up artists and costume designers. The acting is attributed to the actors. But that is not the issue here. I fail to see valid reasons to justify removal of screenshots in cases where critical commentary, which is significant, cannot be demonstrated by any other means. Secret of success ( talk) 05:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Some editors think that this is a discussion that is not over, and are reverting my image deletions. Is this an ongoing discussion, or have administrators already given their final answer to the question? BollyJeff || talk 14:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I wish to make my stance clear with my lot of reasons. I never said that "any type of image wont depict their "acting"". The expression of an actor or actress in an iconic scene is indeed shown in a screenshot containing their role from a film. An actor or actress shows a kind of expression repeatedly in the film, and the critics interpret it in various ways. Some may praise it, while others may ridicule or criticize it. The screenshot will tell the reader how the actor did act and the critical response will tell him how critics reacted to it. Based on that, it is upto the reader to interpret it. Secret of success ( talk) 06:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I do agree on the fact that if a much more better-quality or appropriate image is found, it can be replaced, but if it cannot, we should keep the present one and not delete it. To elaborate on the example Animesh has given, the image shows him sitting in the chair. Whether or not, he satisfies what the critics actually say is not for us to interpret. Period. Again, we should be strict in deciding what screenshots to put. The best option would be the most popular ones, and the most iconic. For actors who experiment a lot with different roles, Kamal Haasan being a classic example, I do not think there is any actor who is more fond of experimenting. He has received countless amount of critical acclaim and all sorts of appreciation till date. In such a case, how will you depict the roles without the screenshots? Also, I completely concur with Animesh's last point: "a picture that shows different look should also be allowed if that role holds importance in the actor's career". Let me know if I have to be more explicit. With regards, Secret of success ( talk) 06:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
After purchasing a software product, I have been granted the right to use its characterisation in any means I see fit, INCLUDING its associated pictures. Only I myself (as the purchaser) and others purchasing the same software package are permitted its use. However,my understanding is that, as I may use it in any way I wish, I can upload it here so long as I include details stating that only owners of the same package may use it. I could not find a relevant wiki-license - the closest I saw under "free" use (which I would be claiming as I am permitted to freely use it) was that I am permitted to use it on Wikipedia. This is not what the license I have permits. It permits me to use it ANYWHERE, but that wiki-license appears to fall under the public domain catagory... which the image isn't.
I figured I would leave the wiki-licence blank and explain in the text as best I could WHY I left it blank, and typically, I have now been requested to fill in the wiki-license. I am a bit stumped as to which I should use. The one that lays out that I am permitted to upload it (even though it incorrectly says I can only do it on wiki) or the one that suggests it's public-domain and free for anyone to use (which is also incorrect because it is not public domain). Any suggestions welcomed! MrZoolook ( talk) 10:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Did I use the correct license on File:K. 54 theme.png? Double sharp ( talk) 13:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
PD-US-1923-abroad|1862}}
. Consider uploading free images to
Commons in the future. --
Stefan2 (
talk)
13:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Is this image copyrigtable? To me it looks simple, but it is a book cover. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Creative Commons license says that the author can (1) specify that use of the item be attributed to him, (2) allow non-commercial use only, and (3) not allow derivative works. When uploading a file, it mentions #1 but not #2 and #3. How do you make those restrictions here (or in www.commons.wikimedia.org)? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to use a tennis image from Boston Public Library's Flickr account on Wikipedia. In the license section it mentions 'Some rights reserved' with a Creative Commons license and conditions BY-NC-ND 2.0. Do I interpret this correctly as meaning that I'm allowed to use this image (and others with the same CC conditions) on Wikipedia/Wikimedia as long as I A) make the proper attribution "(Courtesy of the Boston Public Library, Leslie Jones Collection.)" and B) don't alter it? If this is the case, how strict is the 'No Derivative Works' condition? Can I remove a small black border from the image to make it better suitable for a Wikipedia article or do I have to use it 'as is'? Finally, should I upload this to Wikipedia (en) or Wikimedia (or both) and what is the difference? Haven't uploaded an image here before and want to make sure I get this right (and don't end up in Guantanamo). Thx. -- Wolbo ( talk) 22:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
On Talk:Loren Wiseman, there is an accusation of a fraudulent ownership claim.
At File:Loren Wiseman.jpg the ownership appears to be correct (Probably as a result of the OTRS ticket which I cannot access).
Would it be OK for me to post a note at Talk:Loren Wiseman that the issue has been resolved? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Opinions requested on the copyright status of File:King Sejong - from Commons.jpg.
Despite the title, it isn't on Commons, but Wikipedia. If I read the history correctly, it was on Commons but deleted there.
According to Freedom of Panorama - South Korea:
Although Article 35.(2) of the Republic of Korea: Copyright, Act of 1957 (Law No. 432, as last amended by Law No. 9625 of April 22, 2009) permits any reproduction of works permanently installed in "open places", 35.(2).4 specifically states that the rule does not apply "where reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies." Reproduction is defined in Section 2.(22) as "...the fixation or the reproduction in a tangible medium by means of printing, photographing, copying, sound or visual recording, or other means." Selling reproduction of artistic works in public place is not allowed, for examples, selling postcard, calendar, collection of photos in which the artistic works have major part is not allowed.
The open places appears to apply. The problem is whether the caveat effectively makes it an NC license, and therefore ineligible.
One argument is that the "purpose" of the photograph was for use in Wikipedia, and while it is a necessary requirement that commercial use be permitted, that doesn't change the purpose of the photo. I suspect that argument is not solid enough, as it could be abused.
If the photo doesn't match the license, then my understanding is that it may still be hosted on Wikipedia if an adequate FUR is provided, but I do not see one.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Does this logo meet U.S. threshold of originality? -- George Ho ( talk) 16:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
This is the only website where I can't simply link an image from another image hosting website. Why? It would be a link. You know, "link". Outside of that, is there a place I'm supposed to look on the web for a license free image. A search I'm supposed to perform? Let's say I want a photo of, oh I donno, Julia Roberts?-- XB70Valyrie ( talk) 06:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it is and I want to keep WP ad-free. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newbiepedian Is it even relevant? Isn't the editing done on WP's servers? Furthermore, is it OK to use a reg trademark without permission or indication of its nature by a capital R surrounded by a circle? Gatorinvancouver ( talk) 21:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed this image in the article " Isolation tank", and was somewhat concerned by the fact that a company's copyright was in the bottom corner. Is there an issue here? Thanks.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 20:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I have obtained permission to use this image under the GNU Free Documentation License. I have uploaded the image to Commons with the appropriate license and added a copy of the FlickrMail to the discussion page. Is this the correct procedure? Do I need to do anything else e.g. to confirm permission from the creator? Nirvana2013 ( talk) 12:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I have a question about the image File:GIJoeRetaliationColton.jpg. It was removed from the article General Joseph Colton by Drmies, before the article was permanently protected from editing. When I requested the image to be re-added, in order to specifically identify this character in the movie G.I. Joe: Retaliation, I was told that it does not seem to meet WP:NFCC. However, similar images have been added for other characters from the movie, such as Jinx, Roadblock and Storm Shadow, to identify the movie versions of those characters. Could someone please re-add the image to the infobox under the "G.I. Joe Retaliation" section of the General Joseph Colton article, before the image is deleted on Wednesday, 16 May 2012? And if the image cannot be used, please let me know what aspect of the image would need to change, in order for it to be acceptable. Thanks! Fortdj33 ( talk) 15:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this image eligible for copyrights? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Is a fair use claim valid if the source says no reproduction without consent?
In some cases in the past for other artworks, I have claimed wikipedia counts as an educational use. The Lichtenstein Foundation website claims that their contents are for personal and eductional uses only. Does WP count as an acceptable educational use under fair use for Lichtenstein images?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I want to add an image to an existing article. I googled the persons name and a page of images came up. How do I know which ones I can use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slash177 ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded as fair use. There is a file on Commons from the movie Commons:File:Brainthatwouldntdie.jpg with the license {{ PD-US-not renewed}}. Would that also apply to this poster? -- MGA73 ( talk) 18:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
How are the copyrights to images found? Concerning a few articles on films and persons, I see photos which have been reproduced all over the net; every website yields the info that "This website does not supply ownership information". But I can't find any original photos, or ownership info.
So, then, how are copyrights to stock images found?
If no copyright info is available, does that mean the oft-repeated photo is in the public domain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.thomas-j ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to contact the owners of a couple of images that have previously been used in WP under a claim of Fair Use, and request them to make the images available in a form acceptable to WP for use in any article. I have reason to believe such a request would be honored, if I knew exactly what to ask for. What is the right request to make (such that WP would allow the images to be used) and is there a proper technique for directing the grant of license (or whatever other form it needs to take) to WP?
Thanks! RossPatterson ( talk) 01:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm reading terms and conditions. Does this apply to images used in Wikipedia, such as ones in Kendall Hart? -- George Ho ( talk) 12:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I strongly recommend to review the license of this file ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:7Q5.jpg) due to the incompatibility with the observation Observation from the English Wikipedia: This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years. Original Photograph from "The First New Testament" by David Estrada & William White, Jr. Photograph by David Rubinger, 1972. Photograph used with permission of Thomas Nelson, Inc. -- Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 03:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
This image appears in the Getty Images website. However, this image was uploaded to Wikipedia in 2008, while it was uploaded to Getty in 2009. What does this mean? -- George Ho ( talk) 12:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
An editor is filing permission for images of officers wearing badges, and closeups of the badges themselves.
See Victoria Transit Patrol. I'm thinking that the photos in the gallery are fine, as the badges are a minor element of the photo, but the images in the info box may need explicit permission of the designer, unless they are PD.
The page also includes the various levels of insignia, but these are no photos, they are not photos, they are artistic reproductions
I'm appreciate feedback on the copyright status of each of the three types of elements.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Would File:Royal Cypher of Queen Elizabeth II.svg be public domain in the UK (due to crown copyright)? If so, is it also PD in the US? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
There are images that I'd like to use from website of paintings by an artist, deceased 70+ years (1931). I believe these would be PD, however the images are tagged with: "Artwork images are copyright of the artist or assignee." -- Not sure what it meant by "assignee", or whether or not that can be ignored.
Re:
AskART images of paintings
~Thanks, Eric F
184.76.225.106 (
talk)
15:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I have got written (emailed) permission from Ari Ne'eman to use the ASAN symbol on Wikipedia to represent the Autism rights movement. I want to use it in a userbox for same. Since the symbol is not a licensed image, does that mean it's public domain? Beyond Mr. Ne'eman's email, do I need anything else? -- Bluejay Young ( talk) 17:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
As an aside, we have these similar images: File:Penrose octagon.svg, File:Penrose hexagon.svg Chris857 ( talk) 22:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
C3F2k ( talk · contribs) said that this image is too glossy to be in the public domain. Is this image still eligible for copyrights due to its "glossiness"? -- George Ho ( talk) 13:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Editors,
I have a very old photograph of Saya Aye (1872-1930), the Burmese painter, which I would like to add to the Wikipedia article on Saya Aye. I tried twice to upload it but both times it was rejected.
The owner (or possessor) of the photograph was U Min Naing, a Burmese art scholar, who gave it to me before his death in 2004 for use in my book "Burmese Painting" (published by Silkworm Books, Thailand, 2009; distributed by the University of Washington Press, USA) and for other educational purposes as I saw fit. I did use it in my book. The author of the photograph is unknown and it almost inconceivable that any copyright is attached to it. Here are the various reasons why:
1) It is obvious from the rough nature of the photograph that it was not taken by a professional photographer. It was clearly taken by an amatuer and almost certainly a Burmese, as Saya Aye was only known as a painter of worth among Burmese, not British colonials during his life time.
2) Saya Aye died in 1930 at the age of 58. According to the Wiki terms I read, this (non-USA) photograph should have been taken prior to 1926 in order to be used. In the photograph, Saya Aye looks like a man of about 35-40 years-old so it was probably taken about 1915 or perhaps earlier. Saya Aye had achieved fame among Burmese by the early 1900s. It may date as early as that.
3) The image in this photograph has been widely disseminated in Burma in various publications. I know that it appeared at least as early as 1967-68 in a book by the Burmese art writer G. Hla Maung entitled "On International and Burmese Painting". It also appeared, apparantly as a scan, in the New Treasure Art Gallery publicaton "Selected Masters, Past and Present" in 1995. It appeared again in U Nyan Shein's Volume 1 of "On Burmese Painters, Sculptors and Architects" in 1998 although it is unclear whether this was a reproduction of the actual photograph which U Min Naing held or a scan from an ealier publication. No one has every raised a copyright issue regarding the photograph as it is clearly regarded as belonging in the Public Domain in Burma inasmuch as no one has any idea who took it. In this case, it is treated like many other old photographs by anonymous photographers in Burma and freely used. Lastly, regarding the current possessor of the photograph, that may be said to be me as U Min Naing passed it on to me. Thus, my question is essentially this: May I use the photo for the Saya Aye article? It is the only photograph of Saya Aye that exists. Hsaya ( talk) 18:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will try to proceed. Hsaya ( talk) 07:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I posted this question on the Reference Desk, and was directed here. Essentially, I'm wondering if taking NFL stats from websites/books/etc, compiling them into my own custom-built-and-designed database, then posting said database on a revenue-generating website would be a copyright violation. I've been told that stats are simply facts and cannot be copyrighted, but the "manifestation" of facts can be. Any direction to relevant copyright law and/or court cases would be appreciated. 198.185.18.207 ( talk) 18:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I did not understand a message that I received a couple of days ago about an image that I uploaded a couple of months ago. The image was File:Bromley War Memorial 2.jpg. The information that I uploaded indicated the source and the link to the source. The source confirms the license and matches the license that I selected. I just started occasionally uploading images in March and I don't understand what special permission would be required other than the license. Thank you. Anne ( talk) 10:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been working on a series of articles on Colómbia's programadoras, the companies that produced television programs for the public-commercial television channels there. One of these is Audiovisuales, which was an arm of the Ministerio de Comunicaciones (since renamed to Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones). I'm looking to upload a screenshot of their pre- and post-program ID (seen here) to accompany that article, but I am unsure on the legality of such a move because I don't know if in Colombia, like in the US, federal government works are in the public domain. Raymie ( t • c) 02:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Why Robert Capa's photographs do not fall under {PD-old-50} license?-- 176.241.247.17 ( talk) 19:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
PD-old-50}}
template provides no information about the copyright status in the United States. Normally, works by him are only free in the United States if they were published before 1923 whereas works not published before 1923 are unfree in the United States. The United States does not apply a copyright term of life+50 years, so the template isn't applicable for his works. --
Stefan2 (
talk)
19:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)I found this from MoviePosterShop.com: http://images.moviepostershop.com/boys-in-the-band-the-broadway-movie-poster-1968-1020407281.jpg. Is this poster copyrighted? I don't see a copyright notice in this poster. However, it was published in only Washington, D.C. and no other cities. What do you think? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded some of my own photos under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. Now it says under Attribution: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author" So, the author is me, I suppose, but ... did I specify any manner of attribution implicitly by uploading it under the said licence, or do I still have to specify something explicitly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RikSchuiling ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. So the "manner specified by the author" is simply what I filled in under "Author"? Then why doesn't it say "You must attribute the work to the author as stated under Author above", or something like that? As it is now, a potential user of the photo just sees who is the author and then goes looking for "the manner specified by author", and doesn't find anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RikSchuiling ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I uploaded this photo of Signal's Logo. I don't know if the logo is copyrighted or not, though I did take it from a copyrighted source. I tried to fill out the form the best I could, but have no idea if what I did was sufficient or necessary. Any help would be much appreciated and if you could please reply on my talk page, I'd be grateful. Xgamerms999 ( talk) 05:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The upside down design on this matchbook cover [9] is an unofficial, and very cute, logo of the First Motion Picture Unit. It is public domain? Thanks, – Lionel ( talk) 01:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This picture has the rather peculiar file-name " File:YET UNPUBLISHED PHOTOS PERSONALLY CREATED BY PERERA IN 1991 WITH EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP TO PERERA.jpg", which would seem to suggest that it has not been put in the 'public domain' for use on Wikipedia. Please advise, I am a novice in this area. Regards 220 of Borg 06:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I found this from Getty Images: [10]. It proves that this image is commercial and editorial rather than anything. Would this affect File:Cheers cast photo.jpg, which we have right now? Also, does a proof of prior publication invalidates any reason to delete this image from Wikipedia? -- George Ho ( talk) 20:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
How would I find if this is copyrighted -- or can be used on Wikipedia?
[[:file: http://sitgesfilmfestival.com/scripts/phpthumb/phpThumb.php?src=http://sitgesfilmfestival.com/sitgesadmin/uploads/web_noticies_rel_img/1225478731.jpg&w=350&iar=1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ts.lin ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this car a sculpture/painting or just a car in terms of WP:NFCC?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Just in case, I have created File:BMW Group 5 320i Roy Lichtenstein 1977.jpg with a "cc-by-3.0" and "non-free 3d art". What are your thoughts? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Wondering what to include in my non-free use rationale for a still image from a film. I'm a little new to this. Hoping to avoid the deletion machine before it takes a pass at this photo: [File:Billy Campbell and Ryan Doucette in The Disappared.jpg]
Here's my rationale as of now. I just don't understand what each means.
Description |
Screenshot from film. Promotional |
---|---|
Source |
Provided directly from film's producer |
Article | |
Portion used |
Screenshot |
Low resolution? |
As provided |
Purpose of use |
Promotional still |
Replaceable? |
yes |
Fair use Fair use of copyrighted material in the context of None//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2012/Maytrue |
see template:Non-free use rationale/doc for more. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 13:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Recently I've noticed a series of articles which seem to be nothing more than summaries from D&D monster manuals. Here are some examples Giant bloodworm, Frost man, Rot grub. Most of these articles provide a short summary (which appears to be a précis of the text from one of the D&D manuals) along with an image which has also been scanned from one of the manuals.
In addition to the somewhat suspect notability of these articles, I'm wondering if we are pushing fair-use beyond what is reasonable. I'd understand if we were selecting a few images to illustrate some of the most notable creatures in the D&D fictional universe, however we appear to be significantly replicating parts of a copyrighted work. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I've occasionally pasted blocks of text from books or other sources on talk pages (always fully attributed) as a reference in content discussions. I did this earlier today here [11], and only later wondered whether this kind of thing is a breach of copyright policies. Help? Homunculus ( duihua) 01:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I have added File:KirstieAlley1994-close.jpg as part of the Production section and a free equivalent to other non-free images. Lihaas and I discussed what else to add to help readers understand the episode. As far as I am concerned, I have two options: either a free-to-use-and-to-share image of Alley in 1994 or a non-free image of Alley's first minute of appearance in that episode. Since I used the free image for critical commentary, I wonder if a non-free image of Kirstie Alley from that episode is irreplaceable. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
This non-free image is too dubious to use because it does not explicitly or implicitly represent a true character of Rebecca Howe, who was at first ruthless but then became a mess. I have contacted the uploader about this, but I'm still waiting for his response. Then I have added File:KirstieAlley1994.jpg as part of the Casting section. What shall be done for this non-free image? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
hi there, i've uploaded a picture with no information on where i got it from and about the copyright information. this is the only information that i have on this image.
This is a PR photo. WENN does not claim any Copyright or License in the attached material. Fees charged by WENN are for WENN's services only, and do not, nor are they intended to, convey to the user any ownership of Copyright or License in the material. By publishing this material, the user expressly agrees to indemnify and to hold WENN harmless from any claims, demands, or causes of action arising out of or connected in any way with user's publication of the material. Supplied by WENN
I found the image on http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaydeepooh/4213582179/.
Is this enough information to satisfy wiki in order for it to remain.
thank you so much for your time and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJKingofMusic ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Can someone come by and do an WP:NFCC review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a photograph from 1923, but currently has a tag saying published prior to January 1, 1923, and was uploaded with GFDL but with no evidence of permission. Should it be tagged with a different licence (maybe a combination of Template:PD-URAA and Template:PD-UK-unknown) or is more information needed to confirm its status? Peter E. James ( talk) 15:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I am interested in starting a blog dedicated to reviewing art books. After researching copying regulations, I found the rules surrounding the use of images in critical reviews to be ambiguous. In the case of audio, video or text it is quite simple: the reviewer is only permitted to use snippets of the original work. Image-heavy/art books present a different case, because from an artist's perspective, each individual image is a work in itself. For a song one can use a clip of up to 30 seconds; however, you can't really do this for an image without making the original unintelligible. Does anyone know how to legally use images from books in the context of review (must the image be altered in some way? Is there a certain number/percentage of unaltered images that may be reproduced from each publication?) Any advice you can pass along is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.62.52 ( talk) 15:47, 31 May 2012 (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 have requested permission toward Reuters to use the photo of Aaron Spelling ( http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/13464007/ns/today-entertainment/t/tv-innovator-aaron-spelling-dies/). Reuters said that this such usage in Wikipedia is fair use, which counts as permission from Reuters, despite #7 of the WP:NFC#UUI. However, I wonder if this such use is all right. What do you say? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Can I uploade this photo to Wikipedia right now? I cannot hold on any longer. I haven't contacted Soundvisions1 yet because he is occasionally or seldom active. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an uncommon case. It's always been my impression that most of the large commercial image providers would be rather unwilling to recognize our use of their material as legitimate fair use. In some cases, I believe we have rather explicit statements from them to this effect (don't remember if that was from Getty or some other similar company). For that reason, such a statement encouraging us to invoke fair use on their stuff would be rather surprising. I'd certainly want to see the exact correspondence before I can comment further. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to use a tennis image from Boston Public Library's Flickr account on Wikipedia. In the license section it mentions 'Some rights reserved' with a Creative Commons license and conditions BY-NC-ND 2.0. Do I interpret this correctly as meaning that I'm allowed to use this image (and others with the same CC conditions) on Wikipedia/Wikimedia as long as I A) make the proper attribution "(Courtesy of the Boston Public Library, Leslie Jones Collection.)" and B) don't alter it? If this is the case, how strict is the 'No Derivative Works' condition? Can I remove a small black border from the image to make it better suitable for a Wikipedia article or do I have to use it 'as is'? Finally, should I upload this to Wikipedia (en) or Wikimedia (or both) and what is the difference? Haven't uploaded an image here before and want to make sure I get this right (and don't end up in Guantanamo). Thx. -- Wolbo ( talk) 22:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you instruct me on how to upload an image to wikipedia from my iPad 2. Do you guys have a mobil website where i can use the iPad 2 to upload a picture to the Peyton List article. They havent uploaded a picture to the Peyton List Article since 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by The VJJ ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if this is slightly away from a copyright question; if you have a better place for me to ask I'd be happy to. Regarding OTRS ticket 2012042710010061, which I will generally and anonymously describe here, there is a case where photos from a private cemetery--including headstones and other personally identifying details--are being objected to on privacy grounds. The photographs were taken freely, but violated the cemetery's privacy policy which explicitly prohibits unauthorized photography. Is there any reason we would not take down these photographs; do we have any legal or policy right to keep using them? The files are hosted on Commons but used in articles on Wikipedia. Thanks for your help. Ocaasi t | c 15:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm uploading a screenshot of a bug in the WP:AfC script. It is a free image made by me, but it has both the Wikipedia logo and the Firefox logo visible on it. Can I upload it? Should I blur the logos first? Thanks! -- Nathan2055 talk 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I received this image directly from the person who owns the image (Brenda Dixon Gottschild). I inserted the photo credit (Lonnie Graham) but I do not have copyright information. Is copyright information still necessary if the image is from the owner and if so how do I go about getting the information for copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heidiliu8 ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The articles linked from List of UN numbers appear to exclusively contain material from UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, which is copyright 2001 United Nations Publications and has no apparent public license. The only reason I didn't immediately mass nominate these articles for deletion was to inquire here. Does this appear to be copyright violation or fair use? What is the best course of action? -- beefyt ( talk) 19:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I have just uploaded three images to the Miss United States page: File:missuslogo.jpg, File:missus11.jpg, and File:missus04.jpg. These images belong to the Miss United States Organization, of which I am a member of the Board of Directors. What information should I place in the descriptions to show that I have the right to use these images? Asmit12295 ( talk) 21:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmit12295 ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, we have a request at WP:FFU requesting uploading a SVG version of the existing File:Smoke on the Water riff.jpg, see also Wikipedia:Files for upload/January 2015#Smoke on the Water riff. Can we simply replace the file (upload the svg, deleting the jpg) or do we have to care any copyright problems by the creator of the SVG? mabdul 21:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Can someone explain the copyright status of this image:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Heinkel/Aero57G4.htm
It was taken in 1939 (its on the day of the flight of the He 178, 12 August 1939). Reading the article on German photography here on the Wiki, it appears that the term is infinite, which seems suspect.
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 18:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm still confused. Let's try this: can I post this photo or not, and if I can, how do I tag it? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 11:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This speculation does not seem to help me make a decision. Can anyone else weight in? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 11:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I have received a PDF from the organization Braille Without Borders, containing the basics of the Tibetan braille standard. The document "TIBETAN BRAILLE SCRIPT.pdf" restrictions are Printing, Content Copying, Copying for Accessibility, Page Extraction, and Filling of Form fields all allowed; Document Assembly, Commenting, Signing, and Creation of Template Pages not allowed. It has no other copyright, restriction, or other pertinent document tagging. This document is not posted anywhere on the internet, nor is its information otherwise known to be available. It is the only document I was able to cite for the article Tibetan braille. My question: Is this document acceptable for upload, either in its native PDF format, or as a low-res screen capture? The citation questions I will take to the RS board. Van Isaac WS contribs 06:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
i am new , so just wanted to know how i can help wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimalhotra ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
This screenshot is used at Hollywood Sign, but since it does not illustrate anything substantive in the article (just a brief bullet point in the Use in popular culture section) I believe it does not qualify for fair use inclusion. Seeking a second opinion. - RunningOnBrains( talk) 22:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this image? It was recently upload to commons. The user admits they they are a student (see User talk:Jetulacka#Images) and that this was done as part of a school project. I suspect that they were ignorant of copyright at the time of upload and that it was merely copied from the web. The source is a NPS website [2]. On that page, the image is labelled as "NPS Photo by Paul Horsted". It might be that this image is a government image and is fine; but, I have seen other images on NPS websites that are labeled as NPS images with an artist that were copyrighted. I need someone with more experience at handling these things to take a look at it. Thanks. WTucker ( talk) 01:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I'm really confused about font copyrights. According to Arial, Arial is a proprietary font, whose copyrights are owned by Monotype Imaging. I heard from a professor that Arial was a free alternative to Helvetica, which itself was a copyrighted font (so I guess he's wrong). But when I see fonts used in logos and images, like at File:Nirvana_album_cover.svg, they almost always have a "does not meet threshold of originality" tag (I say almost because there may be fonts that do meet this threshold, but I have yet to see it). So fonts can be copyrighted... but can't be? In regards to simple geometric shapes and fonts, then why is this ("Conan" logo) considered copyrighted? Is the hair shape that original? Thanks so much. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 07:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this logo still copyrighted or ineligible? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The above files have the text and windows logo. Are they eligible for copyrights? -- George Ho ( talk) 13:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this file eligible for copyrights? -- George Ho ( talk) 14:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Are these above logos eligible for copyrights? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I have changed both descriptions. --
George Ho (
talk)
18:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
An editor obtained a photograph from this site:
http://nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.cfm?med_id=64599&from=img
uploaded it as: File:ScalopusAquaticus.jpg
with the license: {{ PD-USGov}}
However, I do not believe the National Science Foundation is considered part of the US Government for this purpose.
Can someone confirm or deny?
The photographer has contacted Wikimedia and I want to make sure of my facts before responding.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Is everything in a US patient copyrighted? How can information in a US patient be incorporated into a Wikipedia article? 157.22.42.3 ( talk) 02:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I've uploaded some photos which I'd like to add to a band page called coldrain. I was confused on how to add the source as Wikipedia keeps telling me that the images are missing copyright status or source. How do I add this information to the image description page?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SR-wonder ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been asked to upload a combined image of a logo and a trademark for Asüna automobiles. I believe either would be okay to upload under fair use, but can a combined image be as well, or do they have to be separate?
Thanks! Ocaasi t | c 19:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I am working on an article for the company peace coffee with another editor and I would like to reference the company's bio-diesel van. If I found a free image (or took one myself) of this van, can I use it or is it still copyrighted because of the design on the van? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I want to create a Wikipedia Page about a mathematical simulation model which was developed and is worked with at the Institute I am working for. On the Institutes homepage you can already find some information about it. My mistake was, that I copied some sentences of the website, which is a copyright issue - so the page was deleted. The thing is that I have the permission of the website owner/developer to copy those sentences (I am part of the Institute). Is there any possibility to make this clear to the reviewers?? Do I really have to change every sentence, to not violate any copyright criteria?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffffaul ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
new to this, so please forgive my mistakes. I've uploaded a photo File:Ria_Zmitrowicz.jpg and asked the person who I thought was relevant for the copyright info. But upon further investigation, it is fairly clear that the photo was taken by someone else. So I've emailed the correct person. The problem that I'm having working out what to do is: how to update the file description / delete it before the correct copyright info is returned from the relevant person.
All the best,
Spider23 ( talk) 14:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
14:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider23 ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikimedia received an inquiry about the copyright status of a document. I promised to check with the experts here to find out whether it can be considered pd, or if licensing is needed, exactly what steps are required.
The document is a 165 page memoir of WW II Experiences
It was written in 1966, with no indications of copyright, and the author passed away in 1967.
My understanding of copyright is that currently, all materials are automatically subject to copyright unless licensed otherwise, but this has not always been true. If I read correctly, with a 1966 creation date (prior to 1989), the material is not considered copywritten unless the author uses a copyright notice.
I also recently learned that publication date is different than creation date and can be relevant. This material was never published.
The material is in the control of a relative, who presumably has the authority to provide a license if that is what is needed.
The material was originally added to a Wikipedia article along with some images, but all were removed because copyright issues were not clear. I've resolved the copyright issues on the images, but now want to address the status of the text.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this strictly forbidden, even when accompanied by critical commentary of an important role in their career? BollyJeff || talk 11:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The looks should be attributed only to the make-up artists and costume designers. The acting is attributed to the actors. But that is not the issue here. I fail to see valid reasons to justify removal of screenshots in cases where critical commentary, which is significant, cannot be demonstrated by any other means. Secret of success ( talk) 05:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Some editors think that this is a discussion that is not over, and are reverting my image deletions. Is this an ongoing discussion, or have administrators already given their final answer to the question? BollyJeff || talk 14:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I wish to make my stance clear with my lot of reasons. I never said that "any type of image wont depict their "acting"". The expression of an actor or actress in an iconic scene is indeed shown in a screenshot containing their role from a film. An actor or actress shows a kind of expression repeatedly in the film, and the critics interpret it in various ways. Some may praise it, while others may ridicule or criticize it. The screenshot will tell the reader how the actor did act and the critical response will tell him how critics reacted to it. Based on that, it is upto the reader to interpret it. Secret of success ( talk) 06:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I do agree on the fact that if a much more better-quality or appropriate image is found, it can be replaced, but if it cannot, we should keep the present one and not delete it. To elaborate on the example Animesh has given, the image shows him sitting in the chair. Whether or not, he satisfies what the critics actually say is not for us to interpret. Period. Again, we should be strict in deciding what screenshots to put. The best option would be the most popular ones, and the most iconic. For actors who experiment a lot with different roles, Kamal Haasan being a classic example, I do not think there is any actor who is more fond of experimenting. He has received countless amount of critical acclaim and all sorts of appreciation till date. In such a case, how will you depict the roles without the screenshots? Also, I completely concur with Animesh's last point: "a picture that shows different look should also be allowed if that role holds importance in the actor's career". Let me know if I have to be more explicit. With regards, Secret of success ( talk) 06:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
After purchasing a software product, I have been granted the right to use its characterisation in any means I see fit, INCLUDING its associated pictures. Only I myself (as the purchaser) and others purchasing the same software package are permitted its use. However,my understanding is that, as I may use it in any way I wish, I can upload it here so long as I include details stating that only owners of the same package may use it. I could not find a relevant wiki-license - the closest I saw under "free" use (which I would be claiming as I am permitted to freely use it) was that I am permitted to use it on Wikipedia. This is not what the license I have permits. It permits me to use it ANYWHERE, but that wiki-license appears to fall under the public domain catagory... which the image isn't.
I figured I would leave the wiki-licence blank and explain in the text as best I could WHY I left it blank, and typically, I have now been requested to fill in the wiki-license. I am a bit stumped as to which I should use. The one that lays out that I am permitted to upload it (even though it incorrectly says I can only do it on wiki) or the one that suggests it's public-domain and free for anyone to use (which is also incorrect because it is not public domain). Any suggestions welcomed! MrZoolook ( talk) 10:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Did I use the correct license on File:K. 54 theme.png? Double sharp ( talk) 13:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
PD-US-1923-abroad|1862}}
. Consider uploading free images to
Commons in the future. --
Stefan2 (
talk)
13:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Is this image copyrigtable? To me it looks simple, but it is a book cover. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Creative Commons license says that the author can (1) specify that use of the item be attributed to him, (2) allow non-commercial use only, and (3) not allow derivative works. When uploading a file, it mentions #1 but not #2 and #3. How do you make those restrictions here (or in www.commons.wikimedia.org)? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to use a tennis image from Boston Public Library's Flickr account on Wikipedia. In the license section it mentions 'Some rights reserved' with a Creative Commons license and conditions BY-NC-ND 2.0. Do I interpret this correctly as meaning that I'm allowed to use this image (and others with the same CC conditions) on Wikipedia/Wikimedia as long as I A) make the proper attribution "(Courtesy of the Boston Public Library, Leslie Jones Collection.)" and B) don't alter it? If this is the case, how strict is the 'No Derivative Works' condition? Can I remove a small black border from the image to make it better suitable for a Wikipedia article or do I have to use it 'as is'? Finally, should I upload this to Wikipedia (en) or Wikimedia (or both) and what is the difference? Haven't uploaded an image here before and want to make sure I get this right (and don't end up in Guantanamo). Thx. -- Wolbo ( talk) 22:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
On Talk:Loren Wiseman, there is an accusation of a fraudulent ownership claim.
At File:Loren Wiseman.jpg the ownership appears to be correct (Probably as a result of the OTRS ticket which I cannot access).
Would it be OK for me to post a note at Talk:Loren Wiseman that the issue has been resolved? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Opinions requested on the copyright status of File:King Sejong - from Commons.jpg.
Despite the title, it isn't on Commons, but Wikipedia. If I read the history correctly, it was on Commons but deleted there.
According to Freedom of Panorama - South Korea:
Although Article 35.(2) of the Republic of Korea: Copyright, Act of 1957 (Law No. 432, as last amended by Law No. 9625 of April 22, 2009) permits any reproduction of works permanently installed in "open places", 35.(2).4 specifically states that the rule does not apply "where reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies." Reproduction is defined in Section 2.(22) as "...the fixation or the reproduction in a tangible medium by means of printing, photographing, copying, sound or visual recording, or other means." Selling reproduction of artistic works in public place is not allowed, for examples, selling postcard, calendar, collection of photos in which the artistic works have major part is not allowed.
The open places appears to apply. The problem is whether the caveat effectively makes it an NC license, and therefore ineligible.
One argument is that the "purpose" of the photograph was for use in Wikipedia, and while it is a necessary requirement that commercial use be permitted, that doesn't change the purpose of the photo. I suspect that argument is not solid enough, as it could be abused.
If the photo doesn't match the license, then my understanding is that it may still be hosted on Wikipedia if an adequate FUR is provided, but I do not see one.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Does this logo meet U.S. threshold of originality? -- George Ho ( talk) 16:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
This is the only website where I can't simply link an image from another image hosting website. Why? It would be a link. You know, "link". Outside of that, is there a place I'm supposed to look on the web for a license free image. A search I'm supposed to perform? Let's say I want a photo of, oh I donno, Julia Roberts?-- XB70Valyrie ( talk) 06:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it is and I want to keep WP ad-free. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newbiepedian Is it even relevant? Isn't the editing done on WP's servers? Furthermore, is it OK to use a reg trademark without permission or indication of its nature by a capital R surrounded by a circle? Gatorinvancouver ( talk) 21:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed this image in the article " Isolation tank", and was somewhat concerned by the fact that a company's copyright was in the bottom corner. Is there an issue here? Thanks.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 20:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I have obtained permission to use this image under the GNU Free Documentation License. I have uploaded the image to Commons with the appropriate license and added a copy of the FlickrMail to the discussion page. Is this the correct procedure? Do I need to do anything else e.g. to confirm permission from the creator? Nirvana2013 ( talk) 12:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I have a question about the image File:GIJoeRetaliationColton.jpg. It was removed from the article General Joseph Colton by Drmies, before the article was permanently protected from editing. When I requested the image to be re-added, in order to specifically identify this character in the movie G.I. Joe: Retaliation, I was told that it does not seem to meet WP:NFCC. However, similar images have been added for other characters from the movie, such as Jinx, Roadblock and Storm Shadow, to identify the movie versions of those characters. Could someone please re-add the image to the infobox under the "G.I. Joe Retaliation" section of the General Joseph Colton article, before the image is deleted on Wednesday, 16 May 2012? And if the image cannot be used, please let me know what aspect of the image would need to change, in order for it to be acceptable. Thanks! Fortdj33 ( talk) 15:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this image eligible for copyrights? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Is a fair use claim valid if the source says no reproduction without consent?
In some cases in the past for other artworks, I have claimed wikipedia counts as an educational use. The Lichtenstein Foundation website claims that their contents are for personal and eductional uses only. Does WP count as an acceptable educational use under fair use for Lichtenstein images?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I want to add an image to an existing article. I googled the persons name and a page of images came up. How do I know which ones I can use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slash177 ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded as fair use. There is a file on Commons from the movie Commons:File:Brainthatwouldntdie.jpg with the license {{ PD-US-not renewed}}. Would that also apply to this poster? -- MGA73 ( talk) 18:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
How are the copyrights to images found? Concerning a few articles on films and persons, I see photos which have been reproduced all over the net; every website yields the info that "This website does not supply ownership information". But I can't find any original photos, or ownership info.
So, then, how are copyrights to stock images found?
If no copyright info is available, does that mean the oft-repeated photo is in the public domain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.thomas-j ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to contact the owners of a couple of images that have previously been used in WP under a claim of Fair Use, and request them to make the images available in a form acceptable to WP for use in any article. I have reason to believe such a request would be honored, if I knew exactly what to ask for. What is the right request to make (such that WP would allow the images to be used) and is there a proper technique for directing the grant of license (or whatever other form it needs to take) to WP?
Thanks! RossPatterson ( talk) 01:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm reading terms and conditions. Does this apply to images used in Wikipedia, such as ones in Kendall Hart? -- George Ho ( talk) 12:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I strongly recommend to review the license of this file ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:7Q5.jpg) due to the incompatibility with the observation Observation from the English Wikipedia: This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years. Original Photograph from "The First New Testament" by David Estrada & William White, Jr. Photograph by David Rubinger, 1972. Photograph used with permission of Thomas Nelson, Inc. -- Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 03:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
This image appears in the Getty Images website. However, this image was uploaded to Wikipedia in 2008, while it was uploaded to Getty in 2009. What does this mean? -- George Ho ( talk) 12:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
An editor is filing permission for images of officers wearing badges, and closeups of the badges themselves.
See Victoria Transit Patrol. I'm thinking that the photos in the gallery are fine, as the badges are a minor element of the photo, but the images in the info box may need explicit permission of the designer, unless they are PD.
The page also includes the various levels of insignia, but these are no photos, they are not photos, they are artistic reproductions
I'm appreciate feedback on the copyright status of each of the three types of elements.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Would File:Royal Cypher of Queen Elizabeth II.svg be public domain in the UK (due to crown copyright)? If so, is it also PD in the US? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
There are images that I'd like to use from website of paintings by an artist, deceased 70+ years (1931). I believe these would be PD, however the images are tagged with: "Artwork images are copyright of the artist or assignee." -- Not sure what it meant by "assignee", or whether or not that can be ignored.
Re:
AskART images of paintings
~Thanks, Eric F
184.76.225.106 (
talk)
15:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I have got written (emailed) permission from Ari Ne'eman to use the ASAN symbol on Wikipedia to represent the Autism rights movement. I want to use it in a userbox for same. Since the symbol is not a licensed image, does that mean it's public domain? Beyond Mr. Ne'eman's email, do I need anything else? -- Bluejay Young ( talk) 17:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
As an aside, we have these similar images: File:Penrose octagon.svg, File:Penrose hexagon.svg Chris857 ( talk) 22:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
C3F2k ( talk · contribs) said that this image is too glossy to be in the public domain. Is this image still eligible for copyrights due to its "glossiness"? -- George Ho ( talk) 13:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Editors,
I have a very old photograph of Saya Aye (1872-1930), the Burmese painter, which I would like to add to the Wikipedia article on Saya Aye. I tried twice to upload it but both times it was rejected.
The owner (or possessor) of the photograph was U Min Naing, a Burmese art scholar, who gave it to me before his death in 2004 for use in my book "Burmese Painting" (published by Silkworm Books, Thailand, 2009; distributed by the University of Washington Press, USA) and for other educational purposes as I saw fit. I did use it in my book. The author of the photograph is unknown and it almost inconceivable that any copyright is attached to it. Here are the various reasons why:
1) It is obvious from the rough nature of the photograph that it was not taken by a professional photographer. It was clearly taken by an amatuer and almost certainly a Burmese, as Saya Aye was only known as a painter of worth among Burmese, not British colonials during his life time.
2) Saya Aye died in 1930 at the age of 58. According to the Wiki terms I read, this (non-USA) photograph should have been taken prior to 1926 in order to be used. In the photograph, Saya Aye looks like a man of about 35-40 years-old so it was probably taken about 1915 or perhaps earlier. Saya Aye had achieved fame among Burmese by the early 1900s. It may date as early as that.
3) The image in this photograph has been widely disseminated in Burma in various publications. I know that it appeared at least as early as 1967-68 in a book by the Burmese art writer G. Hla Maung entitled "On International and Burmese Painting". It also appeared, apparantly as a scan, in the New Treasure Art Gallery publicaton "Selected Masters, Past and Present" in 1995. It appeared again in U Nyan Shein's Volume 1 of "On Burmese Painters, Sculptors and Architects" in 1998 although it is unclear whether this was a reproduction of the actual photograph which U Min Naing held or a scan from an ealier publication. No one has every raised a copyright issue regarding the photograph as it is clearly regarded as belonging in the Public Domain in Burma inasmuch as no one has any idea who took it. In this case, it is treated like many other old photographs by anonymous photographers in Burma and freely used. Lastly, regarding the current possessor of the photograph, that may be said to be me as U Min Naing passed it on to me. Thus, my question is essentially this: May I use the photo for the Saya Aye article? It is the only photograph of Saya Aye that exists. Hsaya ( talk) 18:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will try to proceed. Hsaya ( talk) 07:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I posted this question on the Reference Desk, and was directed here. Essentially, I'm wondering if taking NFL stats from websites/books/etc, compiling them into my own custom-built-and-designed database, then posting said database on a revenue-generating website would be a copyright violation. I've been told that stats are simply facts and cannot be copyrighted, but the "manifestation" of facts can be. Any direction to relevant copyright law and/or court cases would be appreciated. 198.185.18.207 ( talk) 18:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I did not understand a message that I received a couple of days ago about an image that I uploaded a couple of months ago. The image was File:Bromley War Memorial 2.jpg. The information that I uploaded indicated the source and the link to the source. The source confirms the license and matches the license that I selected. I just started occasionally uploading images in March and I don't understand what special permission would be required other than the license. Thank you. Anne ( talk) 10:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been working on a series of articles on Colómbia's programadoras, the companies that produced television programs for the public-commercial television channels there. One of these is Audiovisuales, which was an arm of the Ministerio de Comunicaciones (since renamed to Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones). I'm looking to upload a screenshot of their pre- and post-program ID (seen here) to accompany that article, but I am unsure on the legality of such a move because I don't know if in Colombia, like in the US, federal government works are in the public domain. Raymie ( t • c) 02:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Why Robert Capa's photographs do not fall under {PD-old-50} license?-- 176.241.247.17 ( talk) 19:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
PD-old-50}}
template provides no information about the copyright status in the United States. Normally, works by him are only free in the United States if they were published before 1923 whereas works not published before 1923 are unfree in the United States. The United States does not apply a copyright term of life+50 years, so the template isn't applicable for his works. --
Stefan2 (
talk)
19:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)I found this from MoviePosterShop.com: http://images.moviepostershop.com/boys-in-the-band-the-broadway-movie-poster-1968-1020407281.jpg. Is this poster copyrighted? I don't see a copyright notice in this poster. However, it was published in only Washington, D.C. and no other cities. What do you think? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded some of my own photos under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. Now it says under Attribution: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author" So, the author is me, I suppose, but ... did I specify any manner of attribution implicitly by uploading it under the said licence, or do I still have to specify something explicitly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RikSchuiling ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. So the "manner specified by the author" is simply what I filled in under "Author"? Then why doesn't it say "You must attribute the work to the author as stated under Author above", or something like that? As it is now, a potential user of the photo just sees who is the author and then goes looking for "the manner specified by author", and doesn't find anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RikSchuiling ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I uploaded this photo of Signal's Logo. I don't know if the logo is copyrighted or not, though I did take it from a copyrighted source. I tried to fill out the form the best I could, but have no idea if what I did was sufficient or necessary. Any help would be much appreciated and if you could please reply on my talk page, I'd be grateful. Xgamerms999 ( talk) 05:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The upside down design on this matchbook cover [9] is an unofficial, and very cute, logo of the First Motion Picture Unit. It is public domain? Thanks, – Lionel ( talk) 01:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This picture has the rather peculiar file-name " File:YET UNPUBLISHED PHOTOS PERSONALLY CREATED BY PERERA IN 1991 WITH EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP TO PERERA.jpg", which would seem to suggest that it has not been put in the 'public domain' for use on Wikipedia. Please advise, I am a novice in this area. Regards 220 of Borg 06:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I found this from Getty Images: [10]. It proves that this image is commercial and editorial rather than anything. Would this affect File:Cheers cast photo.jpg, which we have right now? Also, does a proof of prior publication invalidates any reason to delete this image from Wikipedia? -- George Ho ( talk) 20:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
How would I find if this is copyrighted -- or can be used on Wikipedia?
[[:file: http://sitgesfilmfestival.com/scripts/phpthumb/phpThumb.php?src=http://sitgesfilmfestival.com/sitgesadmin/uploads/web_noticies_rel_img/1225478731.jpg&w=350&iar=1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ts.lin ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this car a sculpture/painting or just a car in terms of WP:NFCC?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Just in case, I have created File:BMW Group 5 320i Roy Lichtenstein 1977.jpg with a "cc-by-3.0" and "non-free 3d art". What are your thoughts? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Wondering what to include in my non-free use rationale for a still image from a film. I'm a little new to this. Hoping to avoid the deletion machine before it takes a pass at this photo: [File:Billy Campbell and Ryan Doucette in The Disappared.jpg]
Here's my rationale as of now. I just don't understand what each means.
Description |
Screenshot from film. Promotional |
---|---|
Source |
Provided directly from film's producer |
Article | |
Portion used |
Screenshot |
Low resolution? |
As provided |
Purpose of use |
Promotional still |
Replaceable? |
yes |
Fair use Fair use of copyrighted material in the context of None//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2012/Maytrue |
see template:Non-free use rationale/doc for more. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 13:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Recently I've noticed a series of articles which seem to be nothing more than summaries from D&D monster manuals. Here are some examples Giant bloodworm, Frost man, Rot grub. Most of these articles provide a short summary (which appears to be a précis of the text from one of the D&D manuals) along with an image which has also been scanned from one of the manuals.
In addition to the somewhat suspect notability of these articles, I'm wondering if we are pushing fair-use beyond what is reasonable. I'd understand if we were selecting a few images to illustrate some of the most notable creatures in the D&D fictional universe, however we appear to be significantly replicating parts of a copyrighted work. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I've occasionally pasted blocks of text from books or other sources on talk pages (always fully attributed) as a reference in content discussions. I did this earlier today here [11], and only later wondered whether this kind of thing is a breach of copyright policies. Help? Homunculus ( duihua) 01:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I have added File:KirstieAlley1994-close.jpg as part of the Production section and a free equivalent to other non-free images. Lihaas and I discussed what else to add to help readers understand the episode. As far as I am concerned, I have two options: either a free-to-use-and-to-share image of Alley in 1994 or a non-free image of Alley's first minute of appearance in that episode. Since I used the free image for critical commentary, I wonder if a non-free image of Kirstie Alley from that episode is irreplaceable. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
This non-free image is too dubious to use because it does not explicitly or implicitly represent a true character of Rebecca Howe, who was at first ruthless but then became a mess. I have contacted the uploader about this, but I'm still waiting for his response. Then I have added File:KirstieAlley1994.jpg as part of the Casting section. What shall be done for this non-free image? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
hi there, i've uploaded a picture with no information on where i got it from and about the copyright information. this is the only information that i have on this image.
This is a PR photo. WENN does not claim any Copyright or License in the attached material. Fees charged by WENN are for WENN's services only, and do not, nor are they intended to, convey to the user any ownership of Copyright or License in the material. By publishing this material, the user expressly agrees to indemnify and to hold WENN harmless from any claims, demands, or causes of action arising out of or connected in any way with user's publication of the material. Supplied by WENN
I found the image on http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaydeepooh/4213582179/.
Is this enough information to satisfy wiki in order for it to remain.
thank you so much for your time and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJKingofMusic ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Can someone come by and do an WP:NFCC review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a photograph from 1923, but currently has a tag saying published prior to January 1, 1923, and was uploaded with GFDL but with no evidence of permission. Should it be tagged with a different licence (maybe a combination of Template:PD-URAA and Template:PD-UK-unknown) or is more information needed to confirm its status? Peter E. James ( talk) 15:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I am interested in starting a blog dedicated to reviewing art books. After researching copying regulations, I found the rules surrounding the use of images in critical reviews to be ambiguous. In the case of audio, video or text it is quite simple: the reviewer is only permitted to use snippets of the original work. Image-heavy/art books present a different case, because from an artist's perspective, each individual image is a work in itself. For a song one can use a clip of up to 30 seconds; however, you can't really do this for an image without making the original unintelligible. Does anyone know how to legally use images from books in the context of review (must the image be altered in some way? Is there a certain number/percentage of unaltered images that may be reproduced from each publication?) Any advice you can pass along is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.62.52 ( talk) 15:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)