![]() | 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. |
Some five and one half years ago, that which was styled as "Image:JockeyLogo.png" was flagged by BetacommandBot for inadequate information in the way of fair use rationale. The image currently used for the article for Jockey International is File:Jockey_Logo.svg and it seems to have a rationale in place. I apologize that I am new to this part of the editing process and am at a loss as to how to proceed. The purpose of this request is to find out whether the image may remain in the article (assuming the requirement has been satisfied) or whether it must be removed. In addition, if it can remain, what is to happen with the warning on the talk page? NorthCoastReader ( talk) 04:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Have a 1974 PBS publicity photo I'd like to add to the Cleveland Amory article. The photo is similar except for background to the dustjacket photo of his book, Man Kind? Can the PBS publicity photo be used here as free use or does it have to be considered non-free because of the book cover? Thanks, We hope ( talk) 19:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Is the whole audio clip necessary or replaceable? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
There cannot be a free image of Butterfly Trek Madone because all images would be a derivative work of the design of the bike. With that in mind, would this image of Armstrong riding the bike qualify for fair use, or this image of just the bike? Ryan Vesey 20:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi.
I wrote a new page about the Temple Pyx and I need a photo. Most of the pictures I can find are poor quality and the ones that are decent could possibly be copyrighted. What do I do people?
There's also another image I want to use as it is related. If links are not allowed here please remove. http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartmfrost/6913840986/in/set-72157629409785532 It is the only image of this I can find and I need to know how to get permission to use it.
Thanks PunkRockerPenguin ( talk) 06:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this simple enough to qualify as {{ PD-textlogo}} rather than {{ Non-free logo}}? Useddenim ( talk) 15:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, in browsing the files for Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory I have found a higher-quality version of File:Idlogo.jpg. It is almost identical to that image, but it is alpha transparent, crisper, and is a PNG (versus image-raping JPG).
I would like to upload it. However, it is white-on-transparent, thus would be not visible. Because File:Idlogo.jpg is black-on-transparent, I figured I would modify the image in GIMP by inverting the colors. Can I do this before uploading it? Are there any special steps I must take before I do this?
Both versions of my found image (inverted colors and non-inverted colors) may be found at http://imgur.com/a/ACMdb#Igafc . − Elecbullet ( talk) 22:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add 3 media files on Commons: commons:Category:List of archive formats commons:Category:Digital container format commons:Category:CaList of RISC OS filetype S
My question is May I create a CreativeCommons website of 3 media files commons:Category:List of archive formats commons:Category:Digital container format commons:Category:CaList of RISC OS filetype S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blibrestez55 ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking for some feedback about the appropriate licensing for this logo. As far as I can tell it's been tagged non-free since it was uploaded until September when it was changed with no discussion that I see. It has just recently been reverted, again with no discussion, although none of the old FURs reinstated.
I'm personally of the opinion that it should be tagged non-free to be on the safe side, but I'd like others to weigh in before I go and try to fix everything that needs fixing for this image. VernoWhitney ( talk) 03:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I have written an article on someone mentioned in the DNB about whom little has been written. Wikipedia is asking for information. 1. I had to use primary sources. The only article on the man in question was brief and written in the 1950s.
2. I wrote an article on the same topic for Garden Magazine and they hold the copyright. The article I wish to submit to Wikipedia is much shorter but obviously the references are much the same.
3. Can I mention this published article under 'Further Reading'? Can one recommend one#s own work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMTrafford-Owen ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you tell me whether I should submit this article? JMTrafford-Owen ( talk) 12:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
AImage seems like a blatant copyvio from the cbc link with no other data. Should this be deleted? Lihaas ( talk) 05:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
We currently have 197 articles which link to thirdworldtraveler.com. The site tends to have substantial "exerpts" of third-party content which is often copyrighted, but I have not seen evidence that thirdworldtraveler got permission for these exerpts and I'm concerned that they stray into copyvio territory, in which case
the links should be removed. What does everyone think? Here's a random sample of ten thirdworldtraveler pages which we currently link to:
Most are substantial magazine articles or newspaper editorials, copied whole; some pick several paragraphs from a book which suits the point that the site owners want to make. (Obviously this is just a random sample of 10 pages; other thirdworldtraveler pages may contain larger or smaller chunks of other people's content). It would seem that the original source is usually subject to copyright. I have already removed a few links which I felt failed WP:ELNEVER, but am open to suggestions... and removing the links is often controversial because thirdworldtraveler tends to get cited for controversial or fringey content. What do you think? bobrayner ( talk) 09:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to use pictures found on tinypic.com on Wikipedia without violating copyrights? The Terms of Use for TinyPic ( http://plugin.tinypic.com/terms.php) state: " By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the TinyPic Services, you hereby grant to TinyPic and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels. Content will be publicly available, and TinyPic and other Users may copy or display Content outside of the TinyPic Services through the quick link feature or through any other display mechanisms." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaxfiore ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I've been reading around, and I'm still not sure if i have the rights to share the following:
Pictures of a famous person (musician) taken in a concert by myself (say Tina Turner, Joe Cocker...) Videos of songs performed in this concert (both full and partial), also taken by myself
Pictures and videos of sport events.
Also theese were taken in England, France, Spain and Germany. Do the laws of theese countries apply, or those of the U.S.A.? And how do i know if that's legal in those countries?
Thanks a lot! Ibon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obibon ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
In other words, suing third-party re-users or the WMF would be a long shot; it's instead you that needs to watch out for yourself, depending on the applicable copyright law. U.S. law applies to Wikipedia (and to you if you subject yourself to its jurisdiction, or if the U.S. Justice Department
feels like it), and foreign law applies to you (but not to Wikipedia, unless it subjects itself to that jurisdiction—which it probably does not).
In the U.S., there may be a copyright on a choreographed performance ( explanation), but it's unclear if this applies to the material you have recorded.
One other thing to (briefly) consider is de minimis (incidental) reproduction of copyrighted material. For example, the logo painted on a soccer field might be copyrighted, but there would be no finding of infringement if it only played an incidental role in the overall photograph (subject to a judge's ruling). I suppose freedom of panorama might be in play as well, if there are permanent artistic works installed there.
As a practical matter, many images on Wikipedia (and on the Internet for that matter) have only the uploader's declaration to prove that they are unencumbered by others' copyrights—and that's satisfactory because in the vast majority of situations, there's little likelihood of undesirable consequences. If you accept our explanations, and don't mind risking the one-in-a-million chance of getting sued, then I think it's a net positive to upload the images. TheFeds 09:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
As the "no photography" principle you cite, that's not generally true. We're mainly concerned with the freedom to reproduce the photo on Wikipedia and in other third-party works. This isn't about contract rights, which are only enforceable by the venue upon the photographer. Absent a valid assignment of copyrights in the contract, the venue's displeasure is for the most part not our problem (but it is the photographer's problem, as I mentioned). TheFeds 20:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
What is the copyright status of the list of the top entry of a (series of) lists released on a regular basis? (There is something about a compiled list being copyrighted.) The question refers to the list at Top 20 Countdown. RJFJR ( talk) 20:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
As to the question of brief quotation, the analogue in images is minimal extent of use. If the entire image is needed to serve the purpose, then we wouldn't crop it arbitrarily. The same could be argued for textual quotations, so I don't think we should presuppose that quoting an entire creative list is always forbidden. But I don't disagree in the slightest that a strong non-free content rationale would be beneficial. (And there, again, we don't even have a widely-accepted standard for what a text FUR should look like.)
As for the WMF's (official?) position, I wasn't aware of that input. (Is it documented? A link on the guideline page would be useful.) TheFeds 20:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I admit ignorance as to the method by which the "Top 20 Countdown" is established. Is this an example of a creative list or an algorithmic list? If algorithmic, then I can see why you might be annoyed that I brought up fair use—without creativity, there's no copyright, and hence no need for fair use. TheFeds 20:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to Bobrayner for finding 100+ articles with copyright problems due to linking Third World Traveler. I created a list of articles affected and invite anyone/everyone to help restore citations/articles using other references or restoring citations without the offending URLs. Thanks, groupuscule ( talk) 04:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
i dont belive that because i have seen differnt answers so if you would like go to www.facebook.com/molly melloy.and message me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.165.1 ( talk) 00:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to use a non-free image, from Hebrew Wikipedia, on an English Wikipedia page. Specifically, I'm referring to using he:קובץ:Joshua_Zetler.jpg, on the Yehoshua Zettler page. Am I allowed to do this? If so, how should I do this?
Thank you, Inkbug ( talk) 10:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The article Nude photography contains the copyrighted image File:Nude (1936) - Edward Weston.jpg. I am concerned that this use of that image does not meet the non-free content criteria. (This is not its only use, so I haven't considered proposing it for deletion.) Is there a centralized location to obtain further opinions, or is the local discussion on the article's talk page the primary venue? Powers T 19:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
See my talk page. Maybe someone can help figuring out if the image is freely licensed or not? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 11:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I have an image that was taken by my significant other to use for a wikipedia page, taken by him. It is not copyrighted, and he is okay with it's use on Wikipedia or anywhere else. What is this picture classified as and how can I upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandijo26 ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear Wiki team,
I am having trouble describing the media copyright for a photograph in an article.
The article is 'David Hale (economist)' and the photograph is File:David D. Hale.jpg.
This photo was provided to me directly by Hale's company following my request to them.
Can you please advise me on what steps I need to take to ensure it complies with Wiki policy.
Many thanks, Atlas255 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlas255 ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
question no1 whateis the name of mughalprince muradbuksh son name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.240.232.200 ( talk) 07:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
mughalprincemuradbuksh childrenname — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.240.232.200 ( talk) 07:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this image copyrightable in the UK, despite its ineligibility in the United States? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Is overwriting an existing non-free image with a non-free image that is not a different version of that image an acceptable practice? I don't know of any guideline prohibiting it, but I fear it could lead to all kinds of trouble down the road. I'm asking because of recent changes to this page. Am I justified in objecting, or am I just being paranoid? Good raise 22:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Alternatively, extraneous versions could be revision-deleted, but that doesn't address the issue of different users wanting to use each version independently. (If the images are split into two filenames, extraneous versions should be revision-deleted to maintain the applicability of the FURs to the content depicted.) TheFeds 09:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In the above screenshot, the license tag used was Template:Non-free Microsoft screenshot. However, the license currently states that in order to benefit from Microsoft's automatic permission grant, "you may not use screen shots of Microsoft product boot-up screens, opening screens, "splash screens," or screens from beta release products or other products that have not been commercially released." The screenshot is about a pre-release software. Is the tag alright, or should it use another tag instead? Pizza1016 ( talk) 03:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The photograph on this page was taken on July 22, 1916 the day of the Preparedness Day Bombing. The image is exceptionally notable because it vindicates Thomas Mooney. The earliest published version of it that I have found is on the link I mentioned which was published in August 4, 1936 by someone other than the copyright owner. It writes that police suppressed the file for 20 years and that the August 4, 1936 appearance was the first time it was reproduced. Is the image in the Public Domain or must it wait another 13 years? Ryan Vesey 04:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's the problem: in theory, the photograph could have been copyrighted separately, or published without consent of the copyright owner. In fact, in theory, the article could have also been copyrighted separately (e.g. if it was published elsewhere first). The former will be difficult to track down without knowing who the newsman was; the latter would be easier, but I haven't investigated that.
Instead of doing that, let's consider that this problem comes up all the time: works inside other works (like photos) are frequently treated on Wikipedia as if the overarching work's copyright status applies. Since we don't actually know the terms of licence, that may be a bad assumption. (U.S. government works are a great example of this: U.S. government papers are in the public domain w/r/t copyright, but the government might have licenced the constituent work for government republication only.) It is very improbable that we (or a court) would be able to decide whether or not the photographer 96 years ago licenced, assigned the rights to, registered, renewed or previously published the work, since he remains anonymous. It is less improbable, but still remarkably unlikely, that a plaintiff would have the information needed to prove standing and copyright status, and sue a re-user of the work.
So how hard a line are we actually willing to take on Wikipedia? Precedent seems to indicate that a preponderance of the evidence is enough when the risk of harm or suit is infinitesimal. But if you want to make 100% sure that the work is unencumbered by copyright, you're inherently out of luck for the vast majority of works. I vote to maintain a state of pragmatism: tag it as {{ PD-US-not renewed}}. TheFeds 10:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
A while ago I uploaded the non-free image File:Yutaka Taniyama.png. I am not sure about the author of the image (which is the reason why I succeeded the author name in the rationale with a question mark). Can someone confirm that Shimura is indeed the author of the image? -- Toshio Yamaguchi ( tlk− ctb) 12:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
If you reply, please drop me note on my talkpage as otherwise I might forget to check back here for your reply. -- Toshio Yamaguchi ( tlk− ctb) 12:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I have just uploaded an image File:Min Celso de Mello.jpg and it was questioned about its copyrights. That picture was taken from a photographer from the Brazilian Supreme Court, and the Legislation states any content produced by a Brazilian public agent (as it seems the case) is to be considered as of public interest and fruition, proper credits granted. How would I proceed from here? Many thanks in advance. Etp01 ( talk) 01:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
All help would be appreciated, truly.
I found this photo here: http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4974996
And uploaded it to Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martanda_Sydney_Tondaiman
I was kindly informed about copyright convention by SFan00 IMG and set about finding the relevant information.
The page, just under the photo in its original place, says: You may save or print this image for research and study. If you wish to use it for any other purposes, you must declare your Intention to Publish.
Clicking on the link at the end of that sentence brings one to this page: http://www.nla.gov.au/copyright-and-the-pictures-collection
Where I found the following:
Duration
The Australian Copyright Act defines a variety of periods of copyright protection. The main category that applies to the National Library's Pictures Collection is:
Life of creator plus 70 years, for
■Artistic works ■Photographs taken from 1 January 1955
Photographs taken before 1 January 1955 are all out of copyright.
The photo was taken in 1930, as per their own labeling of it.
Advice re this and the tags, with which I have little to no experience, would be greatly appreciated. I am not an everyday inhabitant of Wikipedia but still want to do this right.
Many thanks. Funambules ( talk) 07:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
expired under Australian law." There is no question of that when asking about the URAA. The works affected by the AUSFTA are in the public domain in Australia. When the question of AUSFTA has returned anything to copyright, as addressed int he document, is all about the work's status in Australia and not the United States. I couldn't see anything in that document that addresses Australian works under United States law. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 11:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
95.246.173.57 ( talk) 11:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to upload an image for a company who asked me to create a page for them, which means that they have given me the permission to use their logo. Do I still need to provide the license agreement or equivalent statement in order to upload the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espresso99 ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 13 November 2012(UTC)
Is this logo copyrightable? I see just words and geometric shapes that resemble sunbeams. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there a different version of this photographic image? The copyright notice at the lower left-hand-corner indicated not only that the copyright belongs, technically, to the Press Association, but it is also the version specifically for use by the the Daily Mail. This is also clearly NOT of a low resolution. -- KC9TV 20:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I just uploaded this file for the new article Brookhart's Acid. It is taken from an academic journal, and thus not-free. Theoretically, a free version could be made, if someone took another crystal structure, and released it under a free license. I consider this unlikely to occur, as the crystal structure is already published. Alternately, someone could take the data of the coordinates (which I can supply, if needed), and make a new image with the proper program (which I lack). I'm unsure what the copyright status of such an image would be. Anyways, I would appreciate advice on whether the current image is acceptable, and if not, how I could go about getting an acceptable one. JDS Chem 444 Sp2012 ( talk) 00:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm doing my upcoming project User:George Ho/Cheers (season 3) (to be Cheers (season 3). I'm planning to capture a still image of the actor's weight loss from this clip. I wonder if it is fair use to make a picture of image to illustrate description. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
What if I can capture one clip from first season and another from third and turn them into one? Would that substantially work, or is that still redundant? --
George Ho (
talk)
15:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Petoskey street.jpg has the wrong license. It is tagged cc-by-sa-2.5 but the source has CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. I have not used the fair use rationals, but from what I am reading it would fail the "no free equivalent", as the street/district is very much there. Should I tag it with the fair use rational then CSD#F7, or just the CSD#F7, or even Db-f3? Thundersnow 06:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to improve the entry for the Canadian band I Mother Earth. I've been adding citations for the entry and today uploaded a photo. I have the verbal permission of both the band and photographer to use the image but I need to know how to tag it appropriately. I'm new to editing here and am not sure what to do. The photo link is posted below. Any help is appreciated.
File:I Mother Earth at Commodore Ballroom in Vancouver.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inters88 ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this logo eligible for copyrights? I see an "M" handwritten. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Are these simple enough to qualify as {{ PD-textlogo}} rather than {{ Non-free logo}}? Useddenim ( talk) 01:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Useddenim ( talk) 09:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Please address a possible copyright violation at the above article on the Notice Board at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_single_Rachel_Maddow_show_as_RS_on_Frank_L._VanderSloot. Thank you. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 23:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
So, I filed a PUF here about File:Checkmark.png and the main question is whether it would apply under {{ PD-shape}}. I don't think so, but it closed with no consensus so I'm not sure. The current perms seem shady at best, so I'd like someone to check this out for me. Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 17:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm fan of television series Glee and would love to upload this picture of actor Cory Monteith with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Can anybody help me with the copyright? I'm from the States and don't know of Canadian copyrights. What are the procedures? Thank you! Keeiither ( talk) 17:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This photo by me should be free for all uses, hiwever it is tagged that it is not licensed by me. I do not find my way around were I caan license this image. Any advise would be appreicated.
Shabib01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabib01 ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Can I make tribute art about a sports team with like dates of their championships or super bowl victory's without using their team logo just their names like The Dallas Cowboys or New York Yankees with a photo of their most famous player or stadium or a drawing of the player. Would I have a problem with that? or do I need permission from the team or leagues?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.217.82 ( talk) 07:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I own a ticket stub for a tennis tournament held in 1969 (Wembley tournament). Can a scan of this be used to illustrate the tournament article? -- Wolbo ( talk) 14:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I want to add an audio file from Google Translate for the prononciation of a few words. What copyright should I use when I'll post it ? (I'm searching for a good licence for Wikipedia, like "no commercial use" or something if there is. I can't find Google Translate TOS). Thank you. -- Tigrul Alb Mesaje 16:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I am interested in creating an image of a building's floor plan, based off of this image. What copyrights exist on floor plans? The building was built in 1908, and it was designed by Paul Humphrey Macneil (1883–1964) [17]. Chris857 ( talk) 20:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
If you send messages about image copyright information... Don't.
Example:
Thanks for uploading File:Longevity Escape Velocity.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
"We" *require* this information...?
Who is "We", and where's the reference link to such a "requirement", Mr. Online-censorship-opposed Joke bloke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedatik ( talk • contribs) 03:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
My image was loaded to this site without my permission, and the person doing so said they had right and said it was released into public domain. They, Sacramento Magazine, only had rights to use the image editorially, not the full copyright, and thus NO right to release it into public domain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Lescroart.jpg#file
How do I remove this image from wikipedia's database? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveadamsphotography ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a photo for a page I created a month or so ago -- Jon Cohen (entrepreneur). The photo was taken by an employee of the company (Cornerstone Agency) whose job was to take photos like the one I used. When I uploaded it I vouched that it was the property of Cornerstone. I don't understand what further information I need to provide (see below message from Wikimail) Any help or clarification you could offer would be much appreciated!! Cklenfner ( talk) 19:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Cklenfner Cklenfner ( talk) 19:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
<message redacted for readability -- viewable at User talk:Cklenfner>
I think I've just been staring at logos for too long, but any chance I can get some feedback as to which if any of these three logos are creative enough to be non-free as opposed to {{ PD-textlogo}} or the like? VernoWhitney ( talk) 20:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
WHAT ARE SPYROGERA ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.7.2 ( talk) 14:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Because I cannot find an obviously-free image of the old fountain of Cambridge Market Square, I think this image illustrates it well:
but I cannot tell if it's still under copyright. As I understand, under UK law, it becomes public domain 70 years after the death of the creator, but if he/she is anonymous, it's 70 years after the image's creation (1999 as the website lists that as 1929). Is that correct?
Without too much effort, how can a layman tell who the author is and when he/she died, or if he/she can be considered anonymous?
Thanks, cmɢʟee ☎ ✉ 19:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
As far as I understand, the creator of a photograph is the person who triggers its capture, even if the camera belongs to someone else.
If I have a camera with smile-detection which triggers the shutter only when everyone is smiling, that implies that the last person to smile is the creator. How does one then prove which person smiled last?
cmɢʟee ☎ ✉ 19:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I have uploaded an image and apparently I stated that it was "non-free" when in fact it is free - how do I change the status for the image? AlexAndrews ( talk) 09:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm really confused about uploading an image to Wikipedia. I am trying to find an image to upload for a page I created for Solomon Asch, and they seem to be copyrighted when I just search on google for it. Can I e-mail the owner of the image and ask to use their image? It really doesn't matter what image it is. I just want some type of image with the article. What is the best way to go about this?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa1230 ( talk • contribs) 05:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa1230 ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! Can someone help me with the copyright status of http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01882/mahon_1882936b.jpg ? Thank you-- 94.65.26.121 ( talk) 12:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I would like to write a Wikipedia article called "Ideological Leanings of the Supreme Court of the United States". In that article, I plan to reference the work of many scholars who have been calculating the ideological lean of the justices. This is a field of study that has grown enormously in the last decade and produced some very solid information. The scholarship includes:
Andrew D. Martin and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999." Political Analysis. 10:134-153. http://adm.wustl.edu/media/pdfs/pa02.pdf http://mqscores.wustl.edu/media/pa02.pdf
"Measuring Court Preferences, 1950 - 2011: Agendas, Polarity and Heterogeneity," by Michael A. Bailey�, Department of Government and Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University, August, 2012 http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/baileyma/CourtPref_July2012.pdf
As part of this article, I would like to include graphs I have created in Excel of the data produced by Martin & Quinn and Bailey showing the change in ideological position of each justice over time. The graphs I have prepared are colorful, with one color for each of the Supreme Court justice seats, and showing the complex evolution of the Court over time (Martin & Quinn: terms beginning in September from 1937 to 2011; Bailey: calendar years from 1950 to 2011).
The data is publicly available and easily downloadable:
Martin and Quinn: http://mqscores.wustl.edu/measures.php Bailey: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/baileyma/Data/Data_Measuring1950to2011_June2012.htm
The Martin and Quinn data has already been displayed in one form in the New York Times:
"Supreme Court May Be Most Conservative in Modern History," by Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight, New York Times, March 29, 2012. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/supreme-court-may-be-most-conservative-in-modern-history/
I have several questions about doing this:
1. Is it ok for me to upload these graphs to Wikipedia? I have created the graphs and I'm happy to make them be public domain. But the data was created by these researchers and reflects their hard work. I will, of course, include a statement that says "Source data: " with their names and a link to the data so it is clear who created it.
2. Do I need to get permission from Martin & Quinn and Bailey before I do this? Or can I proceed without permission? I could send them a courtesy note afterwards (so they would understand if they got inquiries and so they could alert me as they update the data).
Please let me know if this is legally permissible and also what the etiquette is in such a situation. I would like to make this data widely accessible, but I don't want to offend anyone or do anything illegal.
Randy Schutt ( talk) 17:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Are they free? I am asking this because there's a picture credited to Flickr of Justin Bieber receiving a medal from Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Thank you. Keeeith ( talk) 21:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
This is the picture, can anybody help me find the copyright? Keeeith ( talk) 21:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Covance_Undercover_1.jpeg does not appear to meet the criteria for fair use, but as I am not familiar with the finer points of fair use here, I would appreciate other eyes. Thanks, a13ean ( talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I would like to a photograph to a biographical article. The copyright for the photograph is held by another party, who has given permission to post the photograph on wikipedia, but would like to retain the copyright. The image serves two purposes: 1. a portrait of the individual in the article, 2. Connects the individual to an important historical person, who has a wikipedia article. No other free image substitute exists. What is the appropriate copyright tag template for this photograph? Henry Heydenryk, Jr. ( talk) 18:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
File:New old presto.JPG is tagged as PD-self, cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL. It is a reproduction of product packaging (orange juice cartons), even though the brand is defunct is the design work still copyrighted? Note that the image is flagged for transfer to Commons and this should not happen while this question remains open. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Its a picture of the genuine labels that are in my possession, its not a reproduction of any original design work but a genuine picture of these labels, one of which is over 25 years old. Please feel free to use my picture. Fantaboy 23:16, 26 November 2012 (CET)
Is this logo eligible for copyright in the UK and elsewhere? -- George Ho ( talk) 18:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, I'm hoping this will be a simple one. I have found scanned plans of São Paulo, presumably made before construction (they are stamped with the constructors' seal). That would put the creation date somewhere between 1907 and 1910. Are they in the public domain, a.k.a. does that count as being published? Or are they more similar to artwork, which would need to be documented in a pre-1923/70+ years ago published work first? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, We are the legal owners of the following image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Missoula_Panorama_2.jpg
The "Higgins Street Panorama" was photographed in 2005 and posted in our website MontanaPictures.Net http://www.montanapictures.net/missoula_montana_higgins.htm
The panorama was posted on Wiki by someone without our permission. Now the image is being used for commercial purposes on You Tube. (See link below) We insist the image be removed from Wiki. Thank you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRsMSZvyKPo&feature=plcp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithriver ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for an image for Shadia Mansour.
This page [19] has this image. It's a screenshot from a Youtube Video produced the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is under a Crown Copyright. The page was produced by the Government Olympic Communication Newsroom: News and media resources for journalists covering London 2012. Can we use this image as it is consistent with the Open Government License ( [20] [21])? I know it's a small image and there's probably a better way to get a full screenshot for the video, but it would be a start and establish that the source is ok to use in general. Thanks! Ocaasi t | c 20:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
According to WP:NFC, any non-U.S. copyrighted work may be copyrighted in the United States. Is that true? If so, should the category of non-U.S. images exist? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
From WP:NFC#In general: "Anything published in other countries and copyrighted there, is copyright in the United States." -- George Ho ( talk) 07:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to follow through a bit, this discussion vindicates that category. Clearly if they are in copyright in the US they shouldn't be on the encyclopedia. Ergo, this category is a "Do not move to Commons" category of files that a re out of copyright in the US but in copyright in their source country. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 17:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am not sure whether the screenshots of the Malwares like Winwebsec or some Ransomwares like (FBI pop up virus) are protected by Copyright. I have some some screenshots of Virus infections which are really usefull as educational tools. It can be used in wikipedia articles related to Computer Security. -- RAT -.- Poke it 05:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I used to pro about copyright, but it was a long time ago. So, if my friend took an image of artist who join an film promotion event, and that image includes some posters of the film in background ( like this), is that image a free image for Wikipedia?-- Lê talk- contributions 08:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
There is an image that I would like to use for an article - which could also be useful for another related article. This image is a still from a 1919 movie, and as such, should not be a copyvio. However, the film was formerly considered a "lost" film - a copy was found, and the film was "restored" and released. Presumably, the image is from the restored version.
My question is, in general, would a restored copy of a non-copyrighted (public domain) film be considered a derivative work, and would that mean that an image from said film could be copyrighted? - (I can provide specifics, depending on the answer to the general question). ~Thanks, ~Eric F: 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 19:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Description: Image from
The Spiders (film) by
Fritz Lang, 1919 (Weimar Republic) Production: Decla-Bioscop AG; Decla-Film-Gesellschaft Holz & Co.
URL: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/reviews/277/1331444669_3.png License: {{ PD-US-1923-abroad}} This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1923. Link To License Information: N/A (public domain) Author/Copyright Holder's Name: N/A (public domain) Article To Be Used On/Reason For Upload: Cultural depictions of spiders / to illustrate depiction of spiders in early film history, as an example relating to film mentioned 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 19:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC) |
Does this image need a fair use rationale? I removed it because it is tagged {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} and as I understand it fair-use rationales are only required if the image is copyrighted in the US, but the editor who restored it believes it needs a fair-use rationale for the UK (the source country) as it may be copyrighted there. January ( talk) 21:28, 28 November 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. |
Some five and one half years ago, that which was styled as "Image:JockeyLogo.png" was flagged by BetacommandBot for inadequate information in the way of fair use rationale. The image currently used for the article for Jockey International is File:Jockey_Logo.svg and it seems to have a rationale in place. I apologize that I am new to this part of the editing process and am at a loss as to how to proceed. The purpose of this request is to find out whether the image may remain in the article (assuming the requirement has been satisfied) or whether it must be removed. In addition, if it can remain, what is to happen with the warning on the talk page? NorthCoastReader ( talk) 04:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Have a 1974 PBS publicity photo I'd like to add to the Cleveland Amory article. The photo is similar except for background to the dustjacket photo of his book, Man Kind? Can the PBS publicity photo be used here as free use or does it have to be considered non-free because of the book cover? Thanks, We hope ( talk) 19:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Is the whole audio clip necessary or replaceable? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
There cannot be a free image of Butterfly Trek Madone because all images would be a derivative work of the design of the bike. With that in mind, would this image of Armstrong riding the bike qualify for fair use, or this image of just the bike? Ryan Vesey 20:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi.
I wrote a new page about the Temple Pyx and I need a photo. Most of the pictures I can find are poor quality and the ones that are decent could possibly be copyrighted. What do I do people?
There's also another image I want to use as it is related. If links are not allowed here please remove. http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartmfrost/6913840986/in/set-72157629409785532 It is the only image of this I can find and I need to know how to get permission to use it.
Thanks PunkRockerPenguin ( talk) 06:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this simple enough to qualify as {{ PD-textlogo}} rather than {{ Non-free logo}}? Useddenim ( talk) 15:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, in browsing the files for Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory I have found a higher-quality version of File:Idlogo.jpg. It is almost identical to that image, but it is alpha transparent, crisper, and is a PNG (versus image-raping JPG).
I would like to upload it. However, it is white-on-transparent, thus would be not visible. Because File:Idlogo.jpg is black-on-transparent, I figured I would modify the image in GIMP by inverting the colors. Can I do this before uploading it? Are there any special steps I must take before I do this?
Both versions of my found image (inverted colors and non-inverted colors) may be found at http://imgur.com/a/ACMdb#Igafc . − Elecbullet ( talk) 22:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add 3 media files on Commons: commons:Category:List of archive formats commons:Category:Digital container format commons:Category:CaList of RISC OS filetype S
My question is May I create a CreativeCommons website of 3 media files commons:Category:List of archive formats commons:Category:Digital container format commons:Category:CaList of RISC OS filetype S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blibrestez55 ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking for some feedback about the appropriate licensing for this logo. As far as I can tell it's been tagged non-free since it was uploaded until September when it was changed with no discussion that I see. It has just recently been reverted, again with no discussion, although none of the old FURs reinstated.
I'm personally of the opinion that it should be tagged non-free to be on the safe side, but I'd like others to weigh in before I go and try to fix everything that needs fixing for this image. VernoWhitney ( talk) 03:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I have written an article on someone mentioned in the DNB about whom little has been written. Wikipedia is asking for information. 1. I had to use primary sources. The only article on the man in question was brief and written in the 1950s.
2. I wrote an article on the same topic for Garden Magazine and they hold the copyright. The article I wish to submit to Wikipedia is much shorter but obviously the references are much the same.
3. Can I mention this published article under 'Further Reading'? Can one recommend one#s own work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMTrafford-Owen ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you tell me whether I should submit this article? JMTrafford-Owen ( talk) 12:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
AImage seems like a blatant copyvio from the cbc link with no other data. Should this be deleted? Lihaas ( talk) 05:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
We currently have 197 articles which link to thirdworldtraveler.com. The site tends to have substantial "exerpts" of third-party content which is often copyrighted, but I have not seen evidence that thirdworldtraveler got permission for these exerpts and I'm concerned that they stray into copyvio territory, in which case
the links should be removed. What does everyone think? Here's a random sample of ten thirdworldtraveler pages which we currently link to:
Most are substantial magazine articles or newspaper editorials, copied whole; some pick several paragraphs from a book which suits the point that the site owners want to make. (Obviously this is just a random sample of 10 pages; other thirdworldtraveler pages may contain larger or smaller chunks of other people's content). It would seem that the original source is usually subject to copyright. I have already removed a few links which I felt failed WP:ELNEVER, but am open to suggestions... and removing the links is often controversial because thirdworldtraveler tends to get cited for controversial or fringey content. What do you think? bobrayner ( talk) 09:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to use pictures found on tinypic.com on Wikipedia without violating copyrights? The Terms of Use for TinyPic ( http://plugin.tinypic.com/terms.php) state: " By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the TinyPic Services, you hereby grant to TinyPic and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels. Content will be publicly available, and TinyPic and other Users may copy or display Content outside of the TinyPic Services through the quick link feature or through any other display mechanisms." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaxfiore ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I've been reading around, and I'm still not sure if i have the rights to share the following:
Pictures of a famous person (musician) taken in a concert by myself (say Tina Turner, Joe Cocker...) Videos of songs performed in this concert (both full and partial), also taken by myself
Pictures and videos of sport events.
Also theese were taken in England, France, Spain and Germany. Do the laws of theese countries apply, or those of the U.S.A.? And how do i know if that's legal in those countries?
Thanks a lot! Ibon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obibon ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
In other words, suing third-party re-users or the WMF would be a long shot; it's instead you that needs to watch out for yourself, depending on the applicable copyright law. U.S. law applies to Wikipedia (and to you if you subject yourself to its jurisdiction, or if the U.S. Justice Department
feels like it), and foreign law applies to you (but not to Wikipedia, unless it subjects itself to that jurisdiction—which it probably does not).
In the U.S., there may be a copyright on a choreographed performance ( explanation), but it's unclear if this applies to the material you have recorded.
One other thing to (briefly) consider is de minimis (incidental) reproduction of copyrighted material. For example, the logo painted on a soccer field might be copyrighted, but there would be no finding of infringement if it only played an incidental role in the overall photograph (subject to a judge's ruling). I suppose freedom of panorama might be in play as well, if there are permanent artistic works installed there.
As a practical matter, many images on Wikipedia (and on the Internet for that matter) have only the uploader's declaration to prove that they are unencumbered by others' copyrights—and that's satisfactory because in the vast majority of situations, there's little likelihood of undesirable consequences. If you accept our explanations, and don't mind risking the one-in-a-million chance of getting sued, then I think it's a net positive to upload the images. TheFeds 09:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
As the "no photography" principle you cite, that's not generally true. We're mainly concerned with the freedom to reproduce the photo on Wikipedia and in other third-party works. This isn't about contract rights, which are only enforceable by the venue upon the photographer. Absent a valid assignment of copyrights in the contract, the venue's displeasure is for the most part not our problem (but it is the photographer's problem, as I mentioned). TheFeds 20:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
What is the copyright status of the list of the top entry of a (series of) lists released on a regular basis? (There is something about a compiled list being copyrighted.) The question refers to the list at Top 20 Countdown. RJFJR ( talk) 20:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
As to the question of brief quotation, the analogue in images is minimal extent of use. If the entire image is needed to serve the purpose, then we wouldn't crop it arbitrarily. The same could be argued for textual quotations, so I don't think we should presuppose that quoting an entire creative list is always forbidden. But I don't disagree in the slightest that a strong non-free content rationale would be beneficial. (And there, again, we don't even have a widely-accepted standard for what a text FUR should look like.)
As for the WMF's (official?) position, I wasn't aware of that input. (Is it documented? A link on the guideline page would be useful.) TheFeds 20:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I admit ignorance as to the method by which the "Top 20 Countdown" is established. Is this an example of a creative list or an algorithmic list? If algorithmic, then I can see why you might be annoyed that I brought up fair use—without creativity, there's no copyright, and hence no need for fair use. TheFeds 20:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to Bobrayner for finding 100+ articles with copyright problems due to linking Third World Traveler. I created a list of articles affected and invite anyone/everyone to help restore citations/articles using other references or restoring citations without the offending URLs. Thanks, groupuscule ( talk) 04:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
i dont belive that because i have seen differnt answers so if you would like go to www.facebook.com/molly melloy.and message me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.165.1 ( talk) 00:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to use a non-free image, from Hebrew Wikipedia, on an English Wikipedia page. Specifically, I'm referring to using he:קובץ:Joshua_Zetler.jpg, on the Yehoshua Zettler page. Am I allowed to do this? If so, how should I do this?
Thank you, Inkbug ( talk) 10:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The article Nude photography contains the copyrighted image File:Nude (1936) - Edward Weston.jpg. I am concerned that this use of that image does not meet the non-free content criteria. (This is not its only use, so I haven't considered proposing it for deletion.) Is there a centralized location to obtain further opinions, or is the local discussion on the article's talk page the primary venue? Powers T 19:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
See my talk page. Maybe someone can help figuring out if the image is freely licensed or not? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 11:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I have an image that was taken by my significant other to use for a wikipedia page, taken by him. It is not copyrighted, and he is okay with it's use on Wikipedia or anywhere else. What is this picture classified as and how can I upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandijo26 ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear Wiki team,
I am having trouble describing the media copyright for a photograph in an article.
The article is 'David Hale (economist)' and the photograph is File:David D. Hale.jpg.
This photo was provided to me directly by Hale's company following my request to them.
Can you please advise me on what steps I need to take to ensure it complies with Wiki policy.
Many thanks, Atlas255 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlas255 ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
question no1 whateis the name of mughalprince muradbuksh son name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.240.232.200 ( talk) 07:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
mughalprincemuradbuksh childrenname — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.240.232.200 ( talk) 07:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this image copyrightable in the UK, despite its ineligibility in the United States? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Is overwriting an existing non-free image with a non-free image that is not a different version of that image an acceptable practice? I don't know of any guideline prohibiting it, but I fear it could lead to all kinds of trouble down the road. I'm asking because of recent changes to this page. Am I justified in objecting, or am I just being paranoid? Good raise 22:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Alternatively, extraneous versions could be revision-deleted, but that doesn't address the issue of different users wanting to use each version independently. (If the images are split into two filenames, extraneous versions should be revision-deleted to maintain the applicability of the FURs to the content depicted.) TheFeds 09:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In the above screenshot, the license tag used was Template:Non-free Microsoft screenshot. However, the license currently states that in order to benefit from Microsoft's automatic permission grant, "you may not use screen shots of Microsoft product boot-up screens, opening screens, "splash screens," or screens from beta release products or other products that have not been commercially released." The screenshot is about a pre-release software. Is the tag alright, or should it use another tag instead? Pizza1016 ( talk) 03:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The photograph on this page was taken on July 22, 1916 the day of the Preparedness Day Bombing. The image is exceptionally notable because it vindicates Thomas Mooney. The earliest published version of it that I have found is on the link I mentioned which was published in August 4, 1936 by someone other than the copyright owner. It writes that police suppressed the file for 20 years and that the August 4, 1936 appearance was the first time it was reproduced. Is the image in the Public Domain or must it wait another 13 years? Ryan Vesey 04:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's the problem: in theory, the photograph could have been copyrighted separately, or published without consent of the copyright owner. In fact, in theory, the article could have also been copyrighted separately (e.g. if it was published elsewhere first). The former will be difficult to track down without knowing who the newsman was; the latter would be easier, but I haven't investigated that.
Instead of doing that, let's consider that this problem comes up all the time: works inside other works (like photos) are frequently treated on Wikipedia as if the overarching work's copyright status applies. Since we don't actually know the terms of licence, that may be a bad assumption. (U.S. government works are a great example of this: U.S. government papers are in the public domain w/r/t copyright, but the government might have licenced the constituent work for government republication only.) It is very improbable that we (or a court) would be able to decide whether or not the photographer 96 years ago licenced, assigned the rights to, registered, renewed or previously published the work, since he remains anonymous. It is less improbable, but still remarkably unlikely, that a plaintiff would have the information needed to prove standing and copyright status, and sue a re-user of the work.
So how hard a line are we actually willing to take on Wikipedia? Precedent seems to indicate that a preponderance of the evidence is enough when the risk of harm or suit is infinitesimal. But if you want to make 100% sure that the work is unencumbered by copyright, you're inherently out of luck for the vast majority of works. I vote to maintain a state of pragmatism: tag it as {{ PD-US-not renewed}}. TheFeds 10:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
A while ago I uploaded the non-free image File:Yutaka Taniyama.png. I am not sure about the author of the image (which is the reason why I succeeded the author name in the rationale with a question mark). Can someone confirm that Shimura is indeed the author of the image? -- Toshio Yamaguchi ( tlk− ctb) 12:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
If you reply, please drop me note on my talkpage as otherwise I might forget to check back here for your reply. -- Toshio Yamaguchi ( tlk− ctb) 12:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I have just uploaded an image File:Min Celso de Mello.jpg and it was questioned about its copyrights. That picture was taken from a photographer from the Brazilian Supreme Court, and the Legislation states any content produced by a Brazilian public agent (as it seems the case) is to be considered as of public interest and fruition, proper credits granted. How would I proceed from here? Many thanks in advance. Etp01 ( talk) 01:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
All help would be appreciated, truly.
I found this photo here: http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4974996
And uploaded it to Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martanda_Sydney_Tondaiman
I was kindly informed about copyright convention by SFan00 IMG and set about finding the relevant information.
The page, just under the photo in its original place, says: You may save or print this image for research and study. If you wish to use it for any other purposes, you must declare your Intention to Publish.
Clicking on the link at the end of that sentence brings one to this page: http://www.nla.gov.au/copyright-and-the-pictures-collection
Where I found the following:
Duration
The Australian Copyright Act defines a variety of periods of copyright protection. The main category that applies to the National Library's Pictures Collection is:
Life of creator plus 70 years, for
■Artistic works ■Photographs taken from 1 January 1955
Photographs taken before 1 January 1955 are all out of copyright.
The photo was taken in 1930, as per their own labeling of it.
Advice re this and the tags, with which I have little to no experience, would be greatly appreciated. I am not an everyday inhabitant of Wikipedia but still want to do this right.
Many thanks. Funambules ( talk) 07:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
expired under Australian law." There is no question of that when asking about the URAA. The works affected by the AUSFTA are in the public domain in Australia. When the question of AUSFTA has returned anything to copyright, as addressed int he document, is all about the work's status in Australia and not the United States. I couldn't see anything in that document that addresses Australian works under United States law. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 11:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
95.246.173.57 ( talk) 11:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to upload an image for a company who asked me to create a page for them, which means that they have given me the permission to use their logo. Do I still need to provide the license agreement or equivalent statement in order to upload the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espresso99 ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 13 November 2012(UTC)
Is this logo copyrightable? I see just words and geometric shapes that resemble sunbeams. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there a different version of this photographic image? The copyright notice at the lower left-hand-corner indicated not only that the copyright belongs, technically, to the Press Association, but it is also the version specifically for use by the the Daily Mail. This is also clearly NOT of a low resolution. -- KC9TV 20:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I just uploaded this file for the new article Brookhart's Acid. It is taken from an academic journal, and thus not-free. Theoretically, a free version could be made, if someone took another crystal structure, and released it under a free license. I consider this unlikely to occur, as the crystal structure is already published. Alternately, someone could take the data of the coordinates (which I can supply, if needed), and make a new image with the proper program (which I lack). I'm unsure what the copyright status of such an image would be. Anyways, I would appreciate advice on whether the current image is acceptable, and if not, how I could go about getting an acceptable one. JDS Chem 444 Sp2012 ( talk) 00:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm doing my upcoming project User:George Ho/Cheers (season 3) (to be Cheers (season 3). I'm planning to capture a still image of the actor's weight loss from this clip. I wonder if it is fair use to make a picture of image to illustrate description. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
What if I can capture one clip from first season and another from third and turn them into one? Would that substantially work, or is that still redundant? --
George Ho (
talk)
15:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Petoskey street.jpg has the wrong license. It is tagged cc-by-sa-2.5 but the source has CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. I have not used the fair use rationals, but from what I am reading it would fail the "no free equivalent", as the street/district is very much there. Should I tag it with the fair use rational then CSD#F7, or just the CSD#F7, or even Db-f3? Thundersnow 06:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to improve the entry for the Canadian band I Mother Earth. I've been adding citations for the entry and today uploaded a photo. I have the verbal permission of both the band and photographer to use the image but I need to know how to tag it appropriately. I'm new to editing here and am not sure what to do. The photo link is posted below. Any help is appreciated.
File:I Mother Earth at Commodore Ballroom in Vancouver.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inters88 ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this logo eligible for copyrights? I see an "M" handwritten. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Are these simple enough to qualify as {{ PD-textlogo}} rather than {{ Non-free logo}}? Useddenim ( talk) 01:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Useddenim ( talk) 09:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Please address a possible copyright violation at the above article on the Notice Board at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_single_Rachel_Maddow_show_as_RS_on_Frank_L._VanderSloot. Thank you. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 23:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
So, I filed a PUF here about File:Checkmark.png and the main question is whether it would apply under {{ PD-shape}}. I don't think so, but it closed with no consensus so I'm not sure. The current perms seem shady at best, so I'd like someone to check this out for me. Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 17:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm fan of television series Glee and would love to upload this picture of actor Cory Monteith with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Can anybody help me with the copyright? I'm from the States and don't know of Canadian copyrights. What are the procedures? Thank you! Keeiither ( talk) 17:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This photo by me should be free for all uses, hiwever it is tagged that it is not licensed by me. I do not find my way around were I caan license this image. Any advise would be appreicated.
Shabib01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabib01 ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Can I make tribute art about a sports team with like dates of their championships or super bowl victory's without using their team logo just their names like The Dallas Cowboys or New York Yankees with a photo of their most famous player or stadium or a drawing of the player. Would I have a problem with that? or do I need permission from the team or leagues?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.217.82 ( talk) 07:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I own a ticket stub for a tennis tournament held in 1969 (Wembley tournament). Can a scan of this be used to illustrate the tournament article? -- Wolbo ( talk) 14:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I want to add an audio file from Google Translate for the prononciation of a few words. What copyright should I use when I'll post it ? (I'm searching for a good licence for Wikipedia, like "no commercial use" or something if there is. I can't find Google Translate TOS). Thank you. -- Tigrul Alb Mesaje 16:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I am interested in creating an image of a building's floor plan, based off of this image. What copyrights exist on floor plans? The building was built in 1908, and it was designed by Paul Humphrey Macneil (1883–1964) [17]. Chris857 ( talk) 20:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
If you send messages about image copyright information... Don't.
Example:
Thanks for uploading File:Longevity Escape Velocity.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
"We" *require* this information...?
Who is "We", and where's the reference link to such a "requirement", Mr. Online-censorship-opposed Joke bloke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedatik ( talk • contribs) 03:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
My image was loaded to this site without my permission, and the person doing so said they had right and said it was released into public domain. They, Sacramento Magazine, only had rights to use the image editorially, not the full copyright, and thus NO right to release it into public domain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Lescroart.jpg#file
How do I remove this image from wikipedia's database? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveadamsphotography ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a photo for a page I created a month or so ago -- Jon Cohen (entrepreneur). The photo was taken by an employee of the company (Cornerstone Agency) whose job was to take photos like the one I used. When I uploaded it I vouched that it was the property of Cornerstone. I don't understand what further information I need to provide (see below message from Wikimail) Any help or clarification you could offer would be much appreciated!! Cklenfner ( talk) 19:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Cklenfner Cklenfner ( talk) 19:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
<message redacted for readability -- viewable at User talk:Cklenfner>
I think I've just been staring at logos for too long, but any chance I can get some feedback as to which if any of these three logos are creative enough to be non-free as opposed to {{ PD-textlogo}} or the like? VernoWhitney ( talk) 20:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
WHAT ARE SPYROGERA ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.7.2 ( talk) 14:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Because I cannot find an obviously-free image of the old fountain of Cambridge Market Square, I think this image illustrates it well:
but I cannot tell if it's still under copyright. As I understand, under UK law, it becomes public domain 70 years after the death of the creator, but if he/she is anonymous, it's 70 years after the image's creation (1999 as the website lists that as 1929). Is that correct?
Without too much effort, how can a layman tell who the author is and when he/she died, or if he/she can be considered anonymous?
Thanks, cmɢʟee ☎ ✉ 19:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
As far as I understand, the creator of a photograph is the person who triggers its capture, even if the camera belongs to someone else.
If I have a camera with smile-detection which triggers the shutter only when everyone is smiling, that implies that the last person to smile is the creator. How does one then prove which person smiled last?
cmɢʟee ☎ ✉ 19:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I have uploaded an image and apparently I stated that it was "non-free" when in fact it is free - how do I change the status for the image? AlexAndrews ( talk) 09:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm really confused about uploading an image to Wikipedia. I am trying to find an image to upload for a page I created for Solomon Asch, and they seem to be copyrighted when I just search on google for it. Can I e-mail the owner of the image and ask to use their image? It really doesn't matter what image it is. I just want some type of image with the article. What is the best way to go about this?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa1230 ( talk • contribs) 05:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa1230 ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! Can someone help me with the copyright status of http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01882/mahon_1882936b.jpg ? Thank you-- 94.65.26.121 ( talk) 12:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I would like to write a Wikipedia article called "Ideological Leanings of the Supreme Court of the United States". In that article, I plan to reference the work of many scholars who have been calculating the ideological lean of the justices. This is a field of study that has grown enormously in the last decade and produced some very solid information. The scholarship includes:
Andrew D. Martin and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999." Political Analysis. 10:134-153. http://adm.wustl.edu/media/pdfs/pa02.pdf http://mqscores.wustl.edu/media/pa02.pdf
"Measuring Court Preferences, 1950 - 2011: Agendas, Polarity and Heterogeneity," by Michael A. Bailey�, Department of Government and Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University, August, 2012 http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/baileyma/CourtPref_July2012.pdf
As part of this article, I would like to include graphs I have created in Excel of the data produced by Martin & Quinn and Bailey showing the change in ideological position of each justice over time. The graphs I have prepared are colorful, with one color for each of the Supreme Court justice seats, and showing the complex evolution of the Court over time (Martin & Quinn: terms beginning in September from 1937 to 2011; Bailey: calendar years from 1950 to 2011).
The data is publicly available and easily downloadable:
Martin and Quinn: http://mqscores.wustl.edu/measures.php Bailey: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/baileyma/Data/Data_Measuring1950to2011_June2012.htm
The Martin and Quinn data has already been displayed in one form in the New York Times:
"Supreme Court May Be Most Conservative in Modern History," by Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight, New York Times, March 29, 2012. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/supreme-court-may-be-most-conservative-in-modern-history/
I have several questions about doing this:
1. Is it ok for me to upload these graphs to Wikipedia? I have created the graphs and I'm happy to make them be public domain. But the data was created by these researchers and reflects their hard work. I will, of course, include a statement that says "Source data: " with their names and a link to the data so it is clear who created it.
2. Do I need to get permission from Martin & Quinn and Bailey before I do this? Or can I proceed without permission? I could send them a courtesy note afterwards (so they would understand if they got inquiries and so they could alert me as they update the data).
Please let me know if this is legally permissible and also what the etiquette is in such a situation. I would like to make this data widely accessible, but I don't want to offend anyone or do anything illegal.
Randy Schutt ( talk) 17:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Are they free? I am asking this because there's a picture credited to Flickr of Justin Bieber receiving a medal from Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Thank you. Keeeith ( talk) 21:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
This is the picture, can anybody help me find the copyright? Keeeith ( talk) 21:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Covance_Undercover_1.jpeg does not appear to meet the criteria for fair use, but as I am not familiar with the finer points of fair use here, I would appreciate other eyes. Thanks, a13ean ( talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I would like to a photograph to a biographical article. The copyright for the photograph is held by another party, who has given permission to post the photograph on wikipedia, but would like to retain the copyright. The image serves two purposes: 1. a portrait of the individual in the article, 2. Connects the individual to an important historical person, who has a wikipedia article. No other free image substitute exists. What is the appropriate copyright tag template for this photograph? Henry Heydenryk, Jr. ( talk) 18:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
File:New old presto.JPG is tagged as PD-self, cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL. It is a reproduction of product packaging (orange juice cartons), even though the brand is defunct is the design work still copyrighted? Note that the image is flagged for transfer to Commons and this should not happen while this question remains open. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Its a picture of the genuine labels that are in my possession, its not a reproduction of any original design work but a genuine picture of these labels, one of which is over 25 years old. Please feel free to use my picture. Fantaboy 23:16, 26 November 2012 (CET)
Is this logo eligible for copyright in the UK and elsewhere? -- George Ho ( talk) 18:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, I'm hoping this will be a simple one. I have found scanned plans of São Paulo, presumably made before construction (they are stamped with the constructors' seal). That would put the creation date somewhere between 1907 and 1910. Are they in the public domain, a.k.a. does that count as being published? Or are they more similar to artwork, which would need to be documented in a pre-1923/70+ years ago published work first? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, We are the legal owners of the following image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Missoula_Panorama_2.jpg
The "Higgins Street Panorama" was photographed in 2005 and posted in our website MontanaPictures.Net http://www.montanapictures.net/missoula_montana_higgins.htm
The panorama was posted on Wiki by someone without our permission. Now the image is being used for commercial purposes on You Tube. (See link below) We insist the image be removed from Wiki. Thank you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRsMSZvyKPo&feature=plcp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithriver ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for an image for Shadia Mansour.
This page [19] has this image. It's a screenshot from a Youtube Video produced the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is under a Crown Copyright. The page was produced by the Government Olympic Communication Newsroom: News and media resources for journalists covering London 2012. Can we use this image as it is consistent with the Open Government License ( [20] [21])? I know it's a small image and there's probably a better way to get a full screenshot for the video, but it would be a start and establish that the source is ok to use in general. Thanks! Ocaasi t | c 20:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
According to WP:NFC, any non-U.S. copyrighted work may be copyrighted in the United States. Is that true? If so, should the category of non-U.S. images exist? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
From WP:NFC#In general: "Anything published in other countries and copyrighted there, is copyright in the United States." -- George Ho ( talk) 07:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to follow through a bit, this discussion vindicates that category. Clearly if they are in copyright in the US they shouldn't be on the encyclopedia. Ergo, this category is a "Do not move to Commons" category of files that a re out of copyright in the US but in copyright in their source country. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 17:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am not sure whether the screenshots of the Malwares like Winwebsec or some Ransomwares like (FBI pop up virus) are protected by Copyright. I have some some screenshots of Virus infections which are really usefull as educational tools. It can be used in wikipedia articles related to Computer Security. -- RAT -.- Poke it 05:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I used to pro about copyright, but it was a long time ago. So, if my friend took an image of artist who join an film promotion event, and that image includes some posters of the film in background ( like this), is that image a free image for Wikipedia?-- Lê talk- contributions 08:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
There is an image that I would like to use for an article - which could also be useful for another related article. This image is a still from a 1919 movie, and as such, should not be a copyvio. However, the film was formerly considered a "lost" film - a copy was found, and the film was "restored" and released. Presumably, the image is from the restored version.
My question is, in general, would a restored copy of a non-copyrighted (public domain) film be considered a derivative work, and would that mean that an image from said film could be copyrighted? - (I can provide specifics, depending on the answer to the general question). ~Thanks, ~Eric F: 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 19:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Description: Image from
The Spiders (film) by
Fritz Lang, 1919 (Weimar Republic) Production: Decla-Bioscop AG; Decla-Film-Gesellschaft Holz & Co.
URL: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/reviews/277/1331444669_3.png License: {{ PD-US-1923-abroad}} This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1923. Link To License Information: N/A (public domain) Author/Copyright Holder's Name: N/A (public domain) Article To Be Used On/Reason For Upload: Cultural depictions of spiders / to illustrate depiction of spiders in early film history, as an example relating to film mentioned 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 19:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC) |
Does this image need a fair use rationale? I removed it because it is tagged {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} and as I understand it fair-use rationales are only required if the image is copyrighted in the US, but the editor who restored it believes it needs a fair-use rationale for the UK (the source country) as it may be copyrighted there. January ( talk) 21:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)