This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Im not sure how taking a picture of a badge with my ipod camera on a white piece of paper can contain a derivative work. Regards Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 13:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I just recieved a reply from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) and they are unaware of any such legal obsticle, So I have emailed the Defence Honours Directorate. Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 07:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded File:Downtown College Prep gateway.jpg (a photograph I took myself depicting an ornamental gateway at Downtown College Prep in San Jose, California; apparently it is called the Spirit Gate and was created in ... 2000?) but I am wondering whether this is allowed under US law, since it is an artwork. Checking before I use it in the article I plan to write on the school. If it's not ok, c'est la vie, I'll delete it myself. Yngvadottir ( talk) 17:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I am very, very new to Wikipedia. My focus is on books and authors. I wrote my first article and it went live last week (yay!). When I was writing it and getting it ready, I tried to add a picture of the author, and I got really confused and to be honest, spooked, so I thought I would add it later when I knew more about it. Now my article has a happy face and someone requesting pictures of the covers, so I guess it is time to learn how to do this!
When I tried to upload a photo of the author, I used the promotional one from the publisher's website. When I picked what kind of photo it was, I picked the promotional one. A warning popped up and it asked me to defend why I thought this was copyright safe (at least that is what I'm thinking it was asking). I wasn't sure how to word it and what the different lines meant, and I was worried about a big warning on my page.
So, my question is, would somebody help me with this step by step? I'm worried about getting lost and maybe missing something, so if someone would give me the steps at a first grade level, I would greatly appreciete it :) BookBard ( talk) 18:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Wondering how I go about informing you of the email from the publisher, that I have, that gives Wikipedia permission to put the current cover on the Autobiography of a Yogi page. Who do I forward it to? Thanks for your help. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 18:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This file File:Logo-for-wiki.png has been listed for deletion. At the Files for deletion page ( Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 October 2), the reason stated is this: This image doesn't only contain the logo for Bridge Alliance, but also the logos for many other companies. The other logos fail WP:NFCC#8.
How can I ensure that the other logos meet the requirements for WP:NFCC#8 ? I've checked and only CTM and Taiwan Mobile seem to not have existing images of their company logos on Wikipedia. Thanks Brand&comms ( talk) 10:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to be sure, there is no contextual significance for all the company logos even though they are official members of Bridge Alliance? Please refer to FreeMove - Can you kindly explain how there is contextual significance for their member logos to be included in the infobox on the right? Will it be ok if I follow their format and remove the big Bridge Alliance logo at the top, but keep the "Members of Bridge Alliance" and the 11 company logos? Thanks Brand&comms ( talk) 03:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for all the advice. Please help me here, is the issue a question of permission? Because I have permission from Bridge Alliance and the 11 companies to use their logos, and I will be able to show it to Wikipedia. Or is the issue simply that other company logos cannot be used? Thanks Brand&comms ( talk) 02:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I am writing to complain about Wikipedia’s image use policy as enforced by your editors. I’m not sure I agree with or understand why you have chosen a policy so strict that it basically negates the power and potential of the Internet—if you want to have the image policy of a print encyclopedia, that’s your business. What I object to is the impossibility of figuring out what you want and the apparent inability of any of your editors to actually help me solve the problem. The several editors who so vigilantly monitor licenses were quick to detect some problem, what problem I still don’t understand, then instantly delete the picture, and refer me to the same thicket of dozens of articles explaining licenses and policies. What I want to do should be very simple—upload a picture that a friend took of another friend that we all want to be used freely. Why is it so complicated to figure out how to do something simple? I believed I had complied with your demands proving this each time—we’re on the sixth attempt now—only to have someone else come along and complain and give me the same instructions that I thought I’d already satisfied. If I hadn’t satisfied the policy, can you help me do so? We’ve emailed you the permissions of both the person who took the picture and who owns the picture. So what do you want now? I love Wikipedia, but the number of hours I have spent trying to figure out what you want for one simple picture and the frustration this produced has greatly soured me. I’m all for quality control, but all this time that everyone has spent could have been much better invested than in proving the license of an image whose use no one will ever object to. Sincerely, Odell Huff Odellhuff ( talk) 11:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)(Writing in reference to the article and image of Warren Coats). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odellhuff ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
You keep saying Warren Coats is the author of the picture. The author of the picture is the person who took the picture, the sole holder (usually) of the copyright therein; not the person in the picture. As to why we're so picky around here: we have to be, to bulletproof ourselves against lawyers and lawsuits. Believe me, I'd rather be working on articles about obscure legislators of the 19th century like John Cubbins or something equally fascinating. -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
An email containing details of the permission for this text has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS. Does that satisfy the requirements? Thank you for help. While I do understand the reasoning, my personal opinion is that licensing requirements this severe and a decision tree this complex are consuming manpower in recreating the limitations of print. Surely a better balance could be struck between unleashing wiki potential, especially for content meant to be in the public domain, and Wikipedia's legal needs. Odellhuff ( talk) 14:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Jak się nazywa ten słownik: Sprawdzam znaczenie i odmiane polskiego wyrazu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.59.61 ( talk) 12:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Would like someone who really understands copyright rules to review discussion about File:Hachiko 20040803.jpg and other photographs about Hachikō. See the many conversations at Talk:Hachikō. It is clear that art is copyrighted but can it be uploaded and used under non free fair use? -- Traveler100 ( talk) 18:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi.
I am rather new to Wikipedia's field of images and I have a couple of questions about the copyright status of a logo or computer icon. From what I see, I gather that in absence of a specific licensing statement from software vendors, logos and icons of computer software are taken to be licensed under the same terms as the software from which they are derived. For example, Avidemux, Audacity (audio editor), GIMP and Media Player Classic are all published under GPL, so their logos are uploaded under the same license. But the vendor of Blender (software), for instance, has published a separate copyright statement about its logo, so it is not free. Am I right so far? In another word, is this an acceptable general rule? Can I upload the computer icon or logo of any free and open-source GPL software to Wikipedia under a GPL license?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 17:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this image too common or more creative enough to be copyrighted? -- George Ho ( talk) 23:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this book cover in the public domain and, if so, what license tag should be used? The copyright page claims copyright only for the introduction and a map. -- Jonund ( talk) 18:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to license my art work, which is currently in public domain (Web; and now it is not under any license), under creative commons? My interest is to claim ownership. Will it prevent others from for-profit implementations, without attribution? Should I prove as it is my work? -- V4vijayakumar ( talk) 04:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The above sandbox is a proposed change to Non-free Crown Copyright licence.
All images tagged as Crown Copyright now have the {{ Non-free Crown copyright}} tag and an additional Non-free licence.
It was therefore felt reasonable to 'split' the tag between a source/restriction acknowledgement,and one of the standard Non-free licences.
The original suggested change was done in a Bold fashion, and hence the template wasn't edited, and I got told to seek consensus here. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the image belongs in the article Audiobook as this image is owned by Recorded Books, LLC, now part of Simply Audiobooks, Inc. and the author of the article used it without permission from that publisher. -- Marceki111 ( talk) 20:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I have photographs from 1989 that I inherited from Kurt Oscar Weber. Kurt died in 2011. I wish to make these photos free to all. There is no option in the Wikipedia upload forms for files that were inherited. How do I get past these limitations?
Kitkatcook ( talk) 22:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Would File:Sinematek Indonesia logo.png be PD-Simple or PD-text? I think its fairly clear cut, but I'd like to double check. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
This cover too. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure what would be the copyright of the seals/coat of arms for the towns/cities of Puerto Rico. I had uploaded several (like this one) from pages like this, but they were tagged for incorrect permission/licensing/copyright. Any advice on how to figure the license applicable? Thief12 ( talk) 12:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded the file File:Regnum Christi Sheild.jpg which is the sheild used for Regnum Christi and the Legion of Christ as their primary logo. Fair use is fairly clear on the page about Regnum Christi. Howver, I also made a navbox template ( Template:Regnum Christi) to link together various things related to Regnum Christi. Can I use this sheild in the navbox under fair use?
While I am at it, is there any way to crop it directly on wikipedia or need I downlaod it and use photoshop (I would want jsut the sheild without the name for the navbox)? >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 17:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. They (or should I say we since I am a member of the organization in question) use the shield in many different combinations of text and occasionally alone. Since someone else pointed out I need to find a non-opaque version, I will look for one that way. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 09:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
tagged incorrectly as a non-free logo. 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 00:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Verisign-dottv-logo.jpg also appears to be a {{ PD-textlogo}}.
← Take this logo, for example. It's even fancier than either of the aforementioned logos and yet is deemed {{ PD-textlogo}}. 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 22:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I have written an article about a social entrepreneur. I have somehow managed to get the photos from the organization of the social entrepreneur. But the photos have a copyright of the Photographer. The organization maintains it is free for use. How can I upload such photos ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mit.somaiya ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Would it help, if I could take the same photos from the Organization website ? Also how do you upload NFCC content ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mit.somaiya ( talk • contribs) 09:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The file "File:Processing Logo Clipped.svg" appears on Wikipedia with the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. This image is under full copyright from the Processing project ( http://processing.org); the person who uploaded it to Wikipedia assigned an incorrect license. It's of course entirely fine for the image, the project logo, to be used on Wikipedia. However, we've had problems with other people using the image and then citing the CC license attributed on Wikipedia as the justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwinIgnatz ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
i have a pulp fiction movie poster it's too large to hang in my wall i'd like to shrink copy it to a managable size is that copyright infringement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.125.119.213 ( talk) 19:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Can I reproduce a graph from a book? A user asked at WP:GL/I to reproduce three graphs from a book question, book (pdf). Reproducing here means redraw the graph in svg file format. Can I do so? - DePiep ( talk) 16:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Yesterday I was trying to upload some photographs of Richard Sanderson. On the Internet there are lots and lots of photos of him, but nobody can really know where they come from, or who is the owner of them. The problem is that I uploaded just one photo of him and then I got a message telling me the license wasn't correct, or something like that (because I really don't understand anything about licenses, I just chosed Creative Commons) and that unless I sent a prove that the owner gave me permission, Wikipedia would delete the photograph on 14, September. I want to know how to upload a photo of Sanderson without having problems, because it would be impossible to know who has the rights of those images, and because that owner doesn't seem to have any problem with his photos on the Internet, in every single website. I cannot go with Sanderson and take a picture of him now. I wanted to upload a photo of him in the eighties, and that's my problem. Could you help me? Thank you! PD: I'm a 14 years-old Argentinian boy, sorry if I don't speak English very well. WarlusFernando ( talk) 15:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
You will need an appropriate copyright release, see WP:CONSENT.-- ukexpat ( talk) 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Someone on my page has asked for assistance regarding a bunch of NPDs, PUFs, etc. he got on his page, and he is actually a bit upset over the issue. The thread is at User talk:Magog the Ogre#Deleted photo. While I am experienced in the area, I'm really not sure where to start with him (my brain isn't doing well under my current 12 hour work days), so if someone could help me handle this issue in the least WP:BITEy way possible, preferably by providing a way to restore the images, I would much appreciate it. Thanks. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 01:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
If the iOS logo is glossy yet ineligible for copyrights, then KCAL logo must be treated the same, right? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Pictures from the Official Page of the Prime Minister of Canada. Thank you. Iowafromiowa ( talk) 10:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, a new editor who appears to be an expert in his field, Till Oehler ( talk · contribs), has just done a fantastic expansion of the Submarine groundwater discharge article. I have wikified it a bit (among other things), but I'm unsure about the use of the images that he uploaded for the article. Could somebody here get in touch with him? I know next to nothing about images on Wikipedia, because as it says on my user page, I'm totally blind. Thanks! Graham 87 15:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I sent an email to the Canadian Government asking for permission to use a picture. If I receive their OK, what shall I do? Thank you. Iowafromiowa ( talk) 19:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a composition of photographs from 1914, but I am not proof positive that it was "published". However, it does bear a 1914 copyright notice which was registered with the US Copyright Office, which according to Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart would be PD as registered pre1923. Would they be public domain? If it is important, the author, J. W. Nara, died in 1934 (per here). Chris857 ( talk) 02:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
would like to insert a .jpg file into the 'wooden spar' edit I have done so far. the image is from a website which I dont know any info who owns the licecnces (if any) the website is http://www.spitfirebuilder.4t.com/catalog.html
http://www.isaacsspitfire.4t.com/photo6.html and
the file is [ [1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebsbro ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
How can I ensure i have adhered to all copyright rules to use this image in my book?
Chris Cavanaugh <email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.207.97.150 ( talk) 05:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I've sent in the email where the creator provided me this file and gave his permission for me to use it a couple of times, but it's apparently not what's required. What kind of permission does the creator have to send to provide the proper license? Does he have to check in an put the permission into the file's page himself? Pkeets ( talk) 06:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
if you already had this specific case what I would expect, there's no need to read on since the headline gives you all information you need for a yes or no.
If not:
Yes, I consulted FAQs and related materials, but am still unsure. ("Good reasons")
I have started being involved in the enhancement of aviation related articles crossfeeding information between Wikipedias in several languages and in researching reliable sources in several languages.
In my namespace, I explain that my research is strongly motivated by my flight simulator activities. I'd like to illustrate that by about three screenshots depicting freeware models, which are intended to
They are NOT intended to
Screenshot information will include
Reasons for doubt on my part and thus asking you:
Microsoft Flight simulator encourages the taking of screenshots and the parttaking in independent flightsim forums offering freeware, and the publishing of screenshots in their galleries. However, I found no comment about that in the EULA of the software. In fact, almost every topic related website has a gallerie were people post these screenshots. I am aware of the fact that this is not an FS related site, and quod licet Iovi non licet bovi might apply here.
I can proove however that the depicted model is under freeware licence by its documentation and origin.
So, may I ...? Thank you very much in advance for your time and advice,
Johannes "The Rhythmosaur" König
The rhythmosaur ( talk) 18:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The rhythmosaur ( talk) 20:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Are there far too many fair use images in that article? Ryan Vesey 23:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I think i interpret the images on this Wiki(a) to be under CC-BY-SA license but can someone confirm this and also tell me how i upload them here.
Thanks very much ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 22:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Can File:XenForo.png be in Template:PD-textlogo? Ho Tuan Kiet ( Talk) 12:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm dealing with a case where an editor makes the following claim:
WP: Public domain states "Bare facts are in the public domain. Works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible to copyright at all. A second category of works that in general cannot be copyright protected are those that have no (or no significant) creative content: they do not pass the threshold of originality." The news is basically bare facts and has no creative content - so it cannot copyrighted. For a court case on this issue see News Texts not Subject to Copyright
Can I please get some guidance on this? Schwede 66 18:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
In that particular case, the Court appears to affirm the copyright privileges of freelance writers whose works were originally published in periodicals. Since they were by freelancers, presumably they were opinion and comment and in that sense carried creative content. The ruling was limited to that situation - and does not apply to the bare fact "news" written by employees of the NZ Herald. Offender9000 23:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Who says there is no doubt about TV presentations? What is the source for that statement. I suspect there is a distinction to be made between what is said in TV reports (which may be bare facts in the public domain) and use of the video/film itself - which belongs to the producer/broadcaster and therefore may be subject to copyright. Offender9000 23:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that makes it fairly clear that in Germany at least, the threshold for creativity (and therefore for copyright) is higher than that which generally applies to news reporting. Offender9000 23:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I guess this discussion shows that issues involving copyright, especially international copyright are very complex. Unless wikipedia has a media lawyer available to provide a more informed opinion, we are probably not going to resolve anything. Offender9000 20:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I submitted Parable of the sunfish to WP:DYK and a reviewer has raised copyright concerns (comments here, see the last few comments at the bottom of the page). As I understand it, the quoted material is either well within fair use or is no longer under copyright. However, this isn't my area of expertise and I would appreciate a third opinion.
Thanks much,
Garamond Lethe 22:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
FOP for artworks at this park. The article and website make it clear that the artworks are not on permanent display, and part of the FOP law for Germany ( commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany) is intent for permanent display, and it's POSSIBLE that these artworks do not fall under the FOP umbrella for Germany because of the temporary display of the artworks in the park.. Other's opinions here? — raeky t 15:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I found some old behind the scenes pics of River Phoenix filming Dark Blood, I think a few of them would be good to include on his Wikipedia article and the Dark Blood article. I can't figure out what the copyright status would be. The photos are obviously scans, and apparently from the March 1994 issue of Premiere magazine according to the webpage (I googled this issue's cover and there is a River Phoenix article featured). The magazine is no longer being published, so can anyone help me identify the copyright status?
Here is the webpage with the pics http://myriverphoenixcollection.com/dark.html
CityMorgue ( talk) 20:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Does this meet the {{ pd-textlogo}} criteria? It is really just File:Sierpinski triangle evolution.svg plus a common symbol used to represent centroids on engineering drawings and the letter "C"? If so, would Commons accept this file, knowing they would require the logo to be in the public domain in Greece as well? PleaseStand ( talk) 00:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I read on the fair use page that photos belonging to the Federal government were not copyrighted. I wanted to use this image for South Carolina's Attorney General. The photo belongs to Congressman Darrel Issa's office, and would therefore be part of the federal government, but the Flickr license says All Rights Reserved. Could anyone tell me if this image would be usable? Thanks!-- Yaksar (let's chat) 03:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I see non-free screenshots used in this article; are they replaceable by text? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I found this picture this , of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper with a Canadian actor. Can anybody tell me what's the copyright of the picture and why the website can use it freely? Thank you. Iowafromiowa ( talk) 11:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't use it so, that's what you mean. Thank you. Iowafromiowa ( talk) 11:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I am visiting from Michigan. I am going to Fort Worth to visit a new transplant that has moved into the 76107 zip code. She is not a confident driver, and I would like to show around her neighborhood, and the surrounding area. This water park is not far from her home. I was wondering if I could send the article to her? She would love knowing this place is so close to her. She has been in Fort Worth for 2 years taking care of a woman with Dementia. She didn't even know there was a park 4 blocks away from the house she lives in. She is also close to the Botanical Gardens. But 4 blocks! No one ever told her! I will be there for one week. Is it possible to send her the article? Please reply soon. Sincerely; C. Taylor-West — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleentaylorwest ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikimania is the annual international conference of the Wikimedia community. Wikimania allows the community and the general public to learn about and share their experiences with free knowledge initiatives all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kota Tolikara Papua ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
That photo was deleted long ago under criteria #1. It was being used in Allen Morris (tennis) in the section on his Wimbledon appearance. There is no possible way to get a free image of Allen Morris playing tennis at Wimbledon. Should the image be undeleted? Ryan Vesey 16:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
An image, currently uploaded as self-created, was originally posted online elsewhere. I do not specifically doubt the claim, but how do we verify that the Wikipedia editor has rights to the photo? - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded the image, which is online in many different places. I honor the Library of Congress Archives for Pictures and Photographs in the description, but see it many different places, simply by googling it. The only good policy description I know of is the one at the Imperial War Collection (UK), but I can't understand what its policy is saying exactly - it says noncommercial and attributed to author should do it, which I've done, but what Creative Commons license does that fall under? Give it a look and help me fix this - thank you so much in advance.
http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/20700 -- Votevotevote2012 ( talk) 00:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm reviewing a request to license a comic strip, where the author of the text is not the same as the creator of the graphics. (OTRS agents, see 2012102110004531) This is a fairly common situation, but my (admittedly brief) Google search didn't identify anything on point. I think I owe at least a request for clarification that the graphic artist has relinquished rights, but as I think about that, I realize that there may be conventions I don't know about (maybe it is convention that the text author owns the copyright, and can either do the art or contract out for it, but the text author is considered the copyright holder?). Or is it handled case by case, and I have to ask?-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
In regards to the image File:Rebecca Black in 2011.jpg, I am not sure that its copyright is accurate. I was first drawn to the image by noticing that it's definitely not a flattering photo and that we likely have another one available that looks better, as i've seen them in the Rebecca Black article in the past. That was where my concerns about this image being added specifically to be POV and negative toward the subject first emerged.
It's easy to see with a glance that it says it's licensed under Creative Commons via Flikr. However, the location source is stated to be rebeccablackonline.com, Rebecca Black's official website, all of which is copyrighted to her. Therefore, I think this image was Flikr-washed in order to get it under Creative Commons, thus violating the original copyright. Presumably, the uploader to Wikipedia was the one who did the violation. Silver seren C 20:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this logo eligible for copyright? -- George Ho ( talk) 22:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I want to upload to commons a derivative work (adding, not overwriting). The original is on commons, and has a licence {{ cc-by-sa-2.0-uk}}. But in the regular upload wizard I cannot mark that license: I select This file is not my own work, but then there are only five more general CC options to choose from, not this "UK" one. What should I do? Note: I'd like to use the wizard, because there are some 100 files to upload. Original: commons:File:Electron shell 001 Hydrogen.svg. - DePiep ( talk) 15:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
This publicity photo has been tagged for a similar reason as countless others (coincidentally by the same editor) and some clarification is requested. The still, taken in 1958 and used on posters for a film at the time, has been tagged because Getty Images, which was founded in 1995, has added a copyright 2011 notice to their image catalog, one of 24 million images they have available. Note: A search found that they have registered only 493 copyrights since their founding, mostly of random images apparently bought from photographers, along with numerous "compilation" CDROMS.
Therefore, on what legal basis can they claim or have any copyright? The image is a publicity still, described in Film still as traditionally PD, and was taken almost 40 years before Getty Images was founded.
Such stock companies have already been found liable for illegally claiming ownership over thousands of images included in its copyrighted "compilations," and may be liable to countless photographers, per U.S. Copyright Code covering "compilations". It seems that stock company boilerplate copyright notices, at least for old movie stills, are probably meaningless as they misrepresent their copyright status. It would also seem reasonable to rely on the precautionary principle in a new way, and thereby express "significant doubt" that these stock houses actually own copyrights for older images. Otherwise, as these massive stock houses accumulate more PD images and stick their notice on them, useful WP images will continue to be tagged and deleted erroneously. Here's another PD image, tagged as I'm writing this, for the very same reason (and by the same editor.) -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 23:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyfraud, as the term is used in this Article, refers to claiming falsely a copyright in a public domain work. . . . false assertions of copyright are everywhere. In general, copyright belongs to the author of a published work . . . . Archives claim blanket copyright in everything in their collections, including historical works as to which copyright, which likely never belonged to the archive in the first place, has long expired.
. . . .
Corporate websites include blanket copyright notices even when they feature the U.S. flag . . . or rely on other materials squarely in the public domain. . . . many universities now pay licensing fees for virtually everything they reproduce and distribute to their students, whether warranted by copyright law or not.
. . . .
The limited penalties for copyfraud under the Copyright Act, coupled with weak enforcement of these provisions, give publishers an incentive to claim ownership, however spurious, in everything. . . . There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who, as a result of false copyright notices, refrain from legitimate copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to use for free.
Do you think this audio clip ( source) of a whale call could qualify for fair use in NOC (whale)? I just wrote the article, which is still very much a work-in-progress; I've included a link to the file in the "External links" section, but I think the article's quality and usefulness would be greatly increased if we could include it using {{ listen}}. Some things to consider ( WP:NFCC):
I think it qualifies for fair use, but I would appreciate a second or third opinion from more experienced editors. Thanks. Braincricket ( talk) 00:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
This file keeps getting deleted despite the fact that the author has licensed the image under a CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kapookababy/5860490436/in/photostream Ozarkshark ( talk) 10:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I've added a jpeg file to the Isaac Cole page and I'm now being requested to add a tag. I'm unsure as to which tag to add and would therefore require guidance. For information the file is a copy of a photo of my great grandfather, taken in England in 1906 and held within the family since then. I was under the impression that this would be outside of the copyright law due to it's age. Could you assist, please. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole1906 ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
These logos are Canadian. Do they pass threshold of originality in Canada? -- George Ho ( talk) 18:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I just uploaded a file, after checking Wikipedia copywrite requirments. I would like a second set of eyes to look at the copywrite, before I use the photo. The Caltrans page contains a copywrite notice.
Thanks for your help. Wikfr ( talk) 19:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
File:NordBEC.png seems to be too simple to be copyrightable. It should be changed to {{ PD-textlogo}}. Please comment. De728631 ( talk) 20:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
How would i upload images without any problem with or without the permission of the owner? -- Vunene ( talk) 13:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC) -- Glossante ( talk) 13:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
How would I know which images may be uploaded and which ones are copyrighted? -- Glossante ( talk) 13:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sketching out how I would like to improve ACM/IEEE Supercomputing Conference. A unique logo is designed for each year (all logos can be found here). I would like to include the logo for each year in the table in the "History" section (along with a significant amount of additional textual information and links). However, doing so would seem to fall afoul of the "use no more logos than necessary" clause. However, as all but the most recent logo are only of historical interest, and since adding the logos would make the article easier to navigate, I think this might be an exception to that rule. Comments? Garamond Lethe 04:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
This image of the judge is listed with "© July 2006 Woodward Avenue Action Association", but the terms and conditions seem to allow commercial and non-commercial electronic and non-electronic uses so long as attribution is made. I'm not seeing anything explicit about derivatives though to know for sure if this is something we could use. Any help is appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 00:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I have uploaded a newer version. Does this version meet WP:NFCC? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I got a Bot message on my talk page about licensing, but I really have no clue how to add a license to the file, and which license I add. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, TerryAga ( talk) 07:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add an image of Stugeron15 (a Cinnarizine medication) to a webpage, and I found images of the package on Google, how can I use one of these images on Wikipedia?
Cisabell ( talk) 20:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm creating a Wikipedia article for a contemporary sculptor. The sculptor has sent me a few photographs of her artwork that she had either a) taken herself or b) had someone else take at her request. Can you tell me what I need to do so that I can include these images in the article? Thank you! MartinMartin226 ( talk) 18:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
Photo of art|free licence for the photographer's contribution||{{
Non-free 3D art}}
}}
. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)File:The Master's College logo.png is a good example of a proper claim of fair use for a logo: it's being used in the infobox about the logo's owner to identify the owner. However, to satisfy the no-more-than-is-necessary chunk of the NFCC, does it need to be cropped to reduce the size of the white margins? Or do we ignore the margins for NFCC purposes, since they're obviously not copyrightable by themselves? Nyttend ( talk) 23:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
The Licensing section here states that particular image is ineligible for copyright, but I doubt that. The image is displayed in the Second Reality: it's not moving; just being displayed. -- 82.170.113.123 ( talk) 00:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear everyone. I have asked that question already at German Wikipedia but none was able to answer it and I was advised to request it here. I would like to take a screenshoot of that map while it shows the current presidential polls in the US election. Might I upload it at commons? I mean it's a simple map with colours, nothing that much special. Thanks in advance -- Jerchel ( talk) 12:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Please have a look at b:Animation:Master Features/Rendering/Toon Render, the images about the repainted Toy Story scene is a copyvio, or? I would tag them, but I'm not 100% about that kind of copyright. mabdul 19:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I have a book, published in 1969, that contains an image with a caption that says the image was made circa 1884. It has no other attribution information, but the book's author was not born in 1884, so I know it isn't his. I know the rule in the U.S. is that the image has to be published before 1923, not just created prior to then. But what does it mean to be published? Does it have to be published in a commerical, copyrighted work prior to then? If not, what is the threshold? I'd really like to use this image, but I'm not sure I have enough information to keep it from being deleted. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 15:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the great wealth of information. No wonder we have to have an entire noticeboard devoted to this! Based on some continued digging, I'm beginning to believe this photo comes from a personal collection that was subsequently donated to a state historical society. I've got an email in to confirm that it is the same one, since it is only described online and it's a three-hour drive for me to physically view the original. I didn't flat out ask about the copyright status in my initial query. My experience has been that libraries and historical societies often try to represent something as still being copyrighted even when it isn't so they can retain some kind of restriction on its redistribution. If I can confirm that this is the photograph that I suspect it is, I know the author died more than 100 years ago, but it sounds like that won't actually matter. What matters is when it was first made available to the public. At this point, I am not aware of any other publications that use this photo besides the 1969 work that I have. Hopefully, the author (or his/her heir) released all rights as a condition of donating the collection, but somehow I doubt I'll be so lucky! Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 18:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
For the Ansco article, I would like to include the following old advert:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/5022799996/
The flickr site has a Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) designation, but the image in question is a page from a magazine.
So, is it acceptable for Wikipedia, considering
Ansco stopped making films in 1977. Anscochrome name brand's trademark is expired, see: http://www.trademarkia.com/anscochrome-71678859.html The trademark owner, General Aniline & Film, no longer exists and the new owner does not market photographic products.
It seems to me that this is analogous to the situation of an image of a deceased person, no?
Thanks, -- Zeamays ( talk) 19:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hezbollah is deemed a terrorist organization by the United States, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Israel. The way I interpret this is that Hezbollah's flag [3] should be public domain at least in the U.S., because the International Emergency Economic Powers Act prohibits terrorist organizations from participating in commerce in the United States.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 22:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
To repeat part of what I already stated with regards to this situation on User talk:Futuretrillionaire: Being prohibited from engaging in commerce isn't necessarily the same as not being able to hold copyright unless there's a law (or regulation/case law/etc.) that says so. If there's a source or a series of sources which establish that such images are in the public domain, so much the better. VernoWhitney ( talk) 15:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question about proving that an image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. I uploaded this image: File:Product space from Atlas.png, extracted from the Atlas of Economic Complexity, which I sourced to http://atlas.media.mit.edu/book/. On that website, which is the only place where the Atlas has been published, it is stated that the work has been published under that license. However, another user still notified me of a file permission problem with the file, stating that there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. How do I prove that this is the case? Thanks, Claravdw ( talk) 13:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User_talk:TornadoLGS#File_permission_templates. Nathan2055 talk - contribs 16:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
How are non-free content tagged by this Template:Non-free USGov-IEEPA sanctions treated differently on the en WP than typical non-free logos? Does that make a difference when using such non-free content on the en WP? Does it mean that the content can't be used at all outside the U.S.? Are both treated the same?-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 19:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I have recently obtained permission to upload a photograph by a photographer who died less than 70 years ago to Wikipedia. What is the next step? Post the relevant permission somewhere on Wikipedia, send it to somebody, or just upload the image? Thanks in advance! Toccata quarta ( talk) 21:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I work at the LBJ Library and have been in communication with Robert Bolen at the USPS about the new Lady BIrd Forever Stamp that will be issued here on December 22, 2012, which would have been her 100th birthday. The stamp is copyrighted by the USPS but he has given me permission to post it on Wikipedia through the fair use agreement as long as I credit the USPS in the caption.
I cannot seem to find the proper permission. Can you help me? Margaretwmiller ( talk) 22:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Im not sure how taking a picture of a badge with my ipod camera on a white piece of paper can contain a derivative work. Regards Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 13:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I just recieved a reply from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) and they are unaware of any such legal obsticle, So I have emailed the Defence Honours Directorate. Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 07:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded File:Downtown College Prep gateway.jpg (a photograph I took myself depicting an ornamental gateway at Downtown College Prep in San Jose, California; apparently it is called the Spirit Gate and was created in ... 2000?) but I am wondering whether this is allowed under US law, since it is an artwork. Checking before I use it in the article I plan to write on the school. If it's not ok, c'est la vie, I'll delete it myself. Yngvadottir ( talk) 17:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I am very, very new to Wikipedia. My focus is on books and authors. I wrote my first article and it went live last week (yay!). When I was writing it and getting it ready, I tried to add a picture of the author, and I got really confused and to be honest, spooked, so I thought I would add it later when I knew more about it. Now my article has a happy face and someone requesting pictures of the covers, so I guess it is time to learn how to do this!
When I tried to upload a photo of the author, I used the promotional one from the publisher's website. When I picked what kind of photo it was, I picked the promotional one. A warning popped up and it asked me to defend why I thought this was copyright safe (at least that is what I'm thinking it was asking). I wasn't sure how to word it and what the different lines meant, and I was worried about a big warning on my page.
So, my question is, would somebody help me with this step by step? I'm worried about getting lost and maybe missing something, so if someone would give me the steps at a first grade level, I would greatly appreciete it :) BookBard ( talk) 18:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Wondering how I go about informing you of the email from the publisher, that I have, that gives Wikipedia permission to put the current cover on the Autobiography of a Yogi page. Who do I forward it to? Thanks for your help. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 18:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This file File:Logo-for-wiki.png has been listed for deletion. At the Files for deletion page ( Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 October 2), the reason stated is this: This image doesn't only contain the logo for Bridge Alliance, but also the logos for many other companies. The other logos fail WP:NFCC#8.
How can I ensure that the other logos meet the requirements for WP:NFCC#8 ? I've checked and only CTM and Taiwan Mobile seem to not have existing images of their company logos on Wikipedia. Thanks Brand&comms ( talk) 10:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to be sure, there is no contextual significance for all the company logos even though they are official members of Bridge Alliance? Please refer to FreeMove - Can you kindly explain how there is contextual significance for their member logos to be included in the infobox on the right? Will it be ok if I follow their format and remove the big Bridge Alliance logo at the top, but keep the "Members of Bridge Alliance" and the 11 company logos? Thanks Brand&comms ( talk) 03:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for all the advice. Please help me here, is the issue a question of permission? Because I have permission from Bridge Alliance and the 11 companies to use their logos, and I will be able to show it to Wikipedia. Or is the issue simply that other company logos cannot be used? Thanks Brand&comms ( talk) 02:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I am writing to complain about Wikipedia’s image use policy as enforced by your editors. I’m not sure I agree with or understand why you have chosen a policy so strict that it basically negates the power and potential of the Internet—if you want to have the image policy of a print encyclopedia, that’s your business. What I object to is the impossibility of figuring out what you want and the apparent inability of any of your editors to actually help me solve the problem. The several editors who so vigilantly monitor licenses were quick to detect some problem, what problem I still don’t understand, then instantly delete the picture, and refer me to the same thicket of dozens of articles explaining licenses and policies. What I want to do should be very simple—upload a picture that a friend took of another friend that we all want to be used freely. Why is it so complicated to figure out how to do something simple? I believed I had complied with your demands proving this each time—we’re on the sixth attempt now—only to have someone else come along and complain and give me the same instructions that I thought I’d already satisfied. If I hadn’t satisfied the policy, can you help me do so? We’ve emailed you the permissions of both the person who took the picture and who owns the picture. So what do you want now? I love Wikipedia, but the number of hours I have spent trying to figure out what you want for one simple picture and the frustration this produced has greatly soured me. I’m all for quality control, but all this time that everyone has spent could have been much better invested than in proving the license of an image whose use no one will ever object to. Sincerely, Odell Huff Odellhuff ( talk) 11:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)(Writing in reference to the article and image of Warren Coats). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odellhuff ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
You keep saying Warren Coats is the author of the picture. The author of the picture is the person who took the picture, the sole holder (usually) of the copyright therein; not the person in the picture. As to why we're so picky around here: we have to be, to bulletproof ourselves against lawyers and lawsuits. Believe me, I'd rather be working on articles about obscure legislators of the 19th century like John Cubbins or something equally fascinating. -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
An email containing details of the permission for this text has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS. Does that satisfy the requirements? Thank you for help. While I do understand the reasoning, my personal opinion is that licensing requirements this severe and a decision tree this complex are consuming manpower in recreating the limitations of print. Surely a better balance could be struck between unleashing wiki potential, especially for content meant to be in the public domain, and Wikipedia's legal needs. Odellhuff ( talk) 14:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Jak się nazywa ten słownik: Sprawdzam znaczenie i odmiane polskiego wyrazu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.59.61 ( talk) 12:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Would like someone who really understands copyright rules to review discussion about File:Hachiko 20040803.jpg and other photographs about Hachikō. See the many conversations at Talk:Hachikō. It is clear that art is copyrighted but can it be uploaded and used under non free fair use? -- Traveler100 ( talk) 18:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi.
I am rather new to Wikipedia's field of images and I have a couple of questions about the copyright status of a logo or computer icon. From what I see, I gather that in absence of a specific licensing statement from software vendors, logos and icons of computer software are taken to be licensed under the same terms as the software from which they are derived. For example, Avidemux, Audacity (audio editor), GIMP and Media Player Classic are all published under GPL, so their logos are uploaded under the same license. But the vendor of Blender (software), for instance, has published a separate copyright statement about its logo, so it is not free. Am I right so far? In another word, is this an acceptable general rule? Can I upload the computer icon or logo of any free and open-source GPL software to Wikipedia under a GPL license?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 17:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this image too common or more creative enough to be copyrighted? -- George Ho ( talk) 23:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this book cover in the public domain and, if so, what license tag should be used? The copyright page claims copyright only for the introduction and a map. -- Jonund ( talk) 18:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to license my art work, which is currently in public domain (Web; and now it is not under any license), under creative commons? My interest is to claim ownership. Will it prevent others from for-profit implementations, without attribution? Should I prove as it is my work? -- V4vijayakumar ( talk) 04:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The above sandbox is a proposed change to Non-free Crown Copyright licence.
All images tagged as Crown Copyright now have the {{ Non-free Crown copyright}} tag and an additional Non-free licence.
It was therefore felt reasonable to 'split' the tag between a source/restriction acknowledgement,and one of the standard Non-free licences.
The original suggested change was done in a Bold fashion, and hence the template wasn't edited, and I got told to seek consensus here. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the image belongs in the article Audiobook as this image is owned by Recorded Books, LLC, now part of Simply Audiobooks, Inc. and the author of the article used it without permission from that publisher. -- Marceki111 ( talk) 20:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I have photographs from 1989 that I inherited from Kurt Oscar Weber. Kurt died in 2011. I wish to make these photos free to all. There is no option in the Wikipedia upload forms for files that were inherited. How do I get past these limitations?
Kitkatcook ( talk) 22:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Would File:Sinematek Indonesia logo.png be PD-Simple or PD-text? I think its fairly clear cut, but I'd like to double check. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
This cover too. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure what would be the copyright of the seals/coat of arms for the towns/cities of Puerto Rico. I had uploaded several (like this one) from pages like this, but they were tagged for incorrect permission/licensing/copyright. Any advice on how to figure the license applicable? Thief12 ( talk) 12:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded the file File:Regnum Christi Sheild.jpg which is the sheild used for Regnum Christi and the Legion of Christ as their primary logo. Fair use is fairly clear on the page about Regnum Christi. Howver, I also made a navbox template ( Template:Regnum Christi) to link together various things related to Regnum Christi. Can I use this sheild in the navbox under fair use?
While I am at it, is there any way to crop it directly on wikipedia or need I downlaod it and use photoshop (I would want jsut the sheild without the name for the navbox)? >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 17:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. They (or should I say we since I am a member of the organization in question) use the shield in many different combinations of text and occasionally alone. Since someone else pointed out I need to find a non-opaque version, I will look for one that way. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC ( parlemus • feci) 09:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
tagged incorrectly as a non-free logo. 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 00:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Verisign-dottv-logo.jpg also appears to be a {{ PD-textlogo}}.
← Take this logo, for example. It's even fancier than either of the aforementioned logos and yet is deemed {{ PD-textlogo}}. 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 22:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I have written an article about a social entrepreneur. I have somehow managed to get the photos from the organization of the social entrepreneur. But the photos have a copyright of the Photographer. The organization maintains it is free for use. How can I upload such photos ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mit.somaiya ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Would it help, if I could take the same photos from the Organization website ? Also how do you upload NFCC content ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mit.somaiya ( talk • contribs) 09:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The file "File:Processing Logo Clipped.svg" appears on Wikipedia with the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. This image is under full copyright from the Processing project ( http://processing.org); the person who uploaded it to Wikipedia assigned an incorrect license. It's of course entirely fine for the image, the project logo, to be used on Wikipedia. However, we've had problems with other people using the image and then citing the CC license attributed on Wikipedia as the justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwinIgnatz ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
i have a pulp fiction movie poster it's too large to hang in my wall i'd like to shrink copy it to a managable size is that copyright infringement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.125.119.213 ( talk) 19:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Can I reproduce a graph from a book? A user asked at WP:GL/I to reproduce three graphs from a book question, book (pdf). Reproducing here means redraw the graph in svg file format. Can I do so? - DePiep ( talk) 16:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Yesterday I was trying to upload some photographs of Richard Sanderson. On the Internet there are lots and lots of photos of him, but nobody can really know where they come from, or who is the owner of them. The problem is that I uploaded just one photo of him and then I got a message telling me the license wasn't correct, or something like that (because I really don't understand anything about licenses, I just chosed Creative Commons) and that unless I sent a prove that the owner gave me permission, Wikipedia would delete the photograph on 14, September. I want to know how to upload a photo of Sanderson without having problems, because it would be impossible to know who has the rights of those images, and because that owner doesn't seem to have any problem with his photos on the Internet, in every single website. I cannot go with Sanderson and take a picture of him now. I wanted to upload a photo of him in the eighties, and that's my problem. Could you help me? Thank you! PD: I'm a 14 years-old Argentinian boy, sorry if I don't speak English very well. WarlusFernando ( talk) 15:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
You will need an appropriate copyright release, see WP:CONSENT.-- ukexpat ( talk) 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Someone on my page has asked for assistance regarding a bunch of NPDs, PUFs, etc. he got on his page, and he is actually a bit upset over the issue. The thread is at User talk:Magog the Ogre#Deleted photo. While I am experienced in the area, I'm really not sure where to start with him (my brain isn't doing well under my current 12 hour work days), so if someone could help me handle this issue in the least WP:BITEy way possible, preferably by providing a way to restore the images, I would much appreciate it. Thanks. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 01:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
If the iOS logo is glossy yet ineligible for copyrights, then KCAL logo must be treated the same, right? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Pictures from the Official Page of the Prime Minister of Canada. Thank you. Iowafromiowa ( talk) 10:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, a new editor who appears to be an expert in his field, Till Oehler ( talk · contribs), has just done a fantastic expansion of the Submarine groundwater discharge article. I have wikified it a bit (among other things), but I'm unsure about the use of the images that he uploaded for the article. Could somebody here get in touch with him? I know next to nothing about images on Wikipedia, because as it says on my user page, I'm totally blind. Thanks! Graham 87 15:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I sent an email to the Canadian Government asking for permission to use a picture. If I receive their OK, what shall I do? Thank you. Iowafromiowa ( talk) 19:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a composition of photographs from 1914, but I am not proof positive that it was "published". However, it does bear a 1914 copyright notice which was registered with the US Copyright Office, which according to Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart would be PD as registered pre1923. Would they be public domain? If it is important, the author, J. W. Nara, died in 1934 (per here). Chris857 ( talk) 02:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
would like to insert a .jpg file into the 'wooden spar' edit I have done so far. the image is from a website which I dont know any info who owns the licecnces (if any) the website is http://www.spitfirebuilder.4t.com/catalog.html
http://www.isaacsspitfire.4t.com/photo6.html and
the file is [ [1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebsbro ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
How can I ensure i have adhered to all copyright rules to use this image in my book?
Chris Cavanaugh <email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.207.97.150 ( talk) 05:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I've sent in the email where the creator provided me this file and gave his permission for me to use it a couple of times, but it's apparently not what's required. What kind of permission does the creator have to send to provide the proper license? Does he have to check in an put the permission into the file's page himself? Pkeets ( talk) 06:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
if you already had this specific case what I would expect, there's no need to read on since the headline gives you all information you need for a yes or no.
If not:
Yes, I consulted FAQs and related materials, but am still unsure. ("Good reasons")
I have started being involved in the enhancement of aviation related articles crossfeeding information between Wikipedias in several languages and in researching reliable sources in several languages.
In my namespace, I explain that my research is strongly motivated by my flight simulator activities. I'd like to illustrate that by about three screenshots depicting freeware models, which are intended to
They are NOT intended to
Screenshot information will include
Reasons for doubt on my part and thus asking you:
Microsoft Flight simulator encourages the taking of screenshots and the parttaking in independent flightsim forums offering freeware, and the publishing of screenshots in their galleries. However, I found no comment about that in the EULA of the software. In fact, almost every topic related website has a gallerie were people post these screenshots. I am aware of the fact that this is not an FS related site, and quod licet Iovi non licet bovi might apply here.
I can proove however that the depicted model is under freeware licence by its documentation and origin.
So, may I ...? Thank you very much in advance for your time and advice,
Johannes "The Rhythmosaur" König
The rhythmosaur ( talk) 18:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The rhythmosaur ( talk) 20:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Are there far too many fair use images in that article? Ryan Vesey 23:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I think i interpret the images on this Wiki(a) to be under CC-BY-SA license but can someone confirm this and also tell me how i upload them here.
Thanks very much ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 22:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Can File:XenForo.png be in Template:PD-textlogo? Ho Tuan Kiet ( Talk) 12:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm dealing with a case where an editor makes the following claim:
WP: Public domain states "Bare facts are in the public domain. Works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible to copyright at all. A second category of works that in general cannot be copyright protected are those that have no (or no significant) creative content: they do not pass the threshold of originality." The news is basically bare facts and has no creative content - so it cannot copyrighted. For a court case on this issue see News Texts not Subject to Copyright
Can I please get some guidance on this? Schwede 66 18:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
In that particular case, the Court appears to affirm the copyright privileges of freelance writers whose works were originally published in periodicals. Since they were by freelancers, presumably they were opinion and comment and in that sense carried creative content. The ruling was limited to that situation - and does not apply to the bare fact "news" written by employees of the NZ Herald. Offender9000 23:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Who says there is no doubt about TV presentations? What is the source for that statement. I suspect there is a distinction to be made between what is said in TV reports (which may be bare facts in the public domain) and use of the video/film itself - which belongs to the producer/broadcaster and therefore may be subject to copyright. Offender9000 23:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that makes it fairly clear that in Germany at least, the threshold for creativity (and therefore for copyright) is higher than that which generally applies to news reporting. Offender9000 23:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I guess this discussion shows that issues involving copyright, especially international copyright are very complex. Unless wikipedia has a media lawyer available to provide a more informed opinion, we are probably not going to resolve anything. Offender9000 20:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I submitted Parable of the sunfish to WP:DYK and a reviewer has raised copyright concerns (comments here, see the last few comments at the bottom of the page). As I understand it, the quoted material is either well within fair use or is no longer under copyright. However, this isn't my area of expertise and I would appreciate a third opinion.
Thanks much,
Garamond Lethe 22:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
FOP for artworks at this park. The article and website make it clear that the artworks are not on permanent display, and part of the FOP law for Germany ( commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany) is intent for permanent display, and it's POSSIBLE that these artworks do not fall under the FOP umbrella for Germany because of the temporary display of the artworks in the park.. Other's opinions here? — raeky t 15:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I found some old behind the scenes pics of River Phoenix filming Dark Blood, I think a few of them would be good to include on his Wikipedia article and the Dark Blood article. I can't figure out what the copyright status would be. The photos are obviously scans, and apparently from the March 1994 issue of Premiere magazine according to the webpage (I googled this issue's cover and there is a River Phoenix article featured). The magazine is no longer being published, so can anyone help me identify the copyright status?
Here is the webpage with the pics http://myriverphoenixcollection.com/dark.html
CityMorgue ( talk) 20:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Does this meet the {{ pd-textlogo}} criteria? It is really just File:Sierpinski triangle evolution.svg plus a common symbol used to represent centroids on engineering drawings and the letter "C"? If so, would Commons accept this file, knowing they would require the logo to be in the public domain in Greece as well? PleaseStand ( talk) 00:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I read on the fair use page that photos belonging to the Federal government were not copyrighted. I wanted to use this image for South Carolina's Attorney General. The photo belongs to Congressman Darrel Issa's office, and would therefore be part of the federal government, but the Flickr license says All Rights Reserved. Could anyone tell me if this image would be usable? Thanks!-- Yaksar (let's chat) 03:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I see non-free screenshots used in this article; are they replaceable by text? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I found this picture this , of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper with a Canadian actor. Can anybody tell me what's the copyright of the picture and why the website can use it freely? Thank you. Iowafromiowa ( talk) 11:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't use it so, that's what you mean. Thank you. Iowafromiowa ( talk) 11:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I am visiting from Michigan. I am going to Fort Worth to visit a new transplant that has moved into the 76107 zip code. She is not a confident driver, and I would like to show around her neighborhood, and the surrounding area. This water park is not far from her home. I was wondering if I could send the article to her? She would love knowing this place is so close to her. She has been in Fort Worth for 2 years taking care of a woman with Dementia. She didn't even know there was a park 4 blocks away from the house she lives in. She is also close to the Botanical Gardens. But 4 blocks! No one ever told her! I will be there for one week. Is it possible to send her the article? Please reply soon. Sincerely; C. Taylor-West — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleentaylorwest ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikimania is the annual international conference of the Wikimedia community. Wikimania allows the community and the general public to learn about and share their experiences with free knowledge initiatives all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kota Tolikara Papua ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
That photo was deleted long ago under criteria #1. It was being used in Allen Morris (tennis) in the section on his Wimbledon appearance. There is no possible way to get a free image of Allen Morris playing tennis at Wimbledon. Should the image be undeleted? Ryan Vesey 16:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
An image, currently uploaded as self-created, was originally posted online elsewhere. I do not specifically doubt the claim, but how do we verify that the Wikipedia editor has rights to the photo? - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded the image, which is online in many different places. I honor the Library of Congress Archives for Pictures and Photographs in the description, but see it many different places, simply by googling it. The only good policy description I know of is the one at the Imperial War Collection (UK), but I can't understand what its policy is saying exactly - it says noncommercial and attributed to author should do it, which I've done, but what Creative Commons license does that fall under? Give it a look and help me fix this - thank you so much in advance.
http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/20700 -- Votevotevote2012 ( talk) 00:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm reviewing a request to license a comic strip, where the author of the text is not the same as the creator of the graphics. (OTRS agents, see 2012102110004531) This is a fairly common situation, but my (admittedly brief) Google search didn't identify anything on point. I think I owe at least a request for clarification that the graphic artist has relinquished rights, but as I think about that, I realize that there may be conventions I don't know about (maybe it is convention that the text author owns the copyright, and can either do the art or contract out for it, but the text author is considered the copyright holder?). Or is it handled case by case, and I have to ask?-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
In regards to the image File:Rebecca Black in 2011.jpg, I am not sure that its copyright is accurate. I was first drawn to the image by noticing that it's definitely not a flattering photo and that we likely have another one available that looks better, as i've seen them in the Rebecca Black article in the past. That was where my concerns about this image being added specifically to be POV and negative toward the subject first emerged.
It's easy to see with a glance that it says it's licensed under Creative Commons via Flikr. However, the location source is stated to be rebeccablackonline.com, Rebecca Black's official website, all of which is copyrighted to her. Therefore, I think this image was Flikr-washed in order to get it under Creative Commons, thus violating the original copyright. Presumably, the uploader to Wikipedia was the one who did the violation. Silver seren C 20:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this logo eligible for copyright? -- George Ho ( talk) 22:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I want to upload to commons a derivative work (adding, not overwriting). The original is on commons, and has a licence {{ cc-by-sa-2.0-uk}}. But in the regular upload wizard I cannot mark that license: I select This file is not my own work, but then there are only five more general CC options to choose from, not this "UK" one. What should I do? Note: I'd like to use the wizard, because there are some 100 files to upload. Original: commons:File:Electron shell 001 Hydrogen.svg. - DePiep ( talk) 15:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
This publicity photo has been tagged for a similar reason as countless others (coincidentally by the same editor) and some clarification is requested. The still, taken in 1958 and used on posters for a film at the time, has been tagged because Getty Images, which was founded in 1995, has added a copyright 2011 notice to their image catalog, one of 24 million images they have available. Note: A search found that they have registered only 493 copyrights since their founding, mostly of random images apparently bought from photographers, along with numerous "compilation" CDROMS.
Therefore, on what legal basis can they claim or have any copyright? The image is a publicity still, described in Film still as traditionally PD, and was taken almost 40 years before Getty Images was founded.
Such stock companies have already been found liable for illegally claiming ownership over thousands of images included in its copyrighted "compilations," and may be liable to countless photographers, per U.S. Copyright Code covering "compilations". It seems that stock company boilerplate copyright notices, at least for old movie stills, are probably meaningless as they misrepresent their copyright status. It would also seem reasonable to rely on the precautionary principle in a new way, and thereby express "significant doubt" that these stock houses actually own copyrights for older images. Otherwise, as these massive stock houses accumulate more PD images and stick their notice on them, useful WP images will continue to be tagged and deleted erroneously. Here's another PD image, tagged as I'm writing this, for the very same reason (and by the same editor.) -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 23:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyfraud, as the term is used in this Article, refers to claiming falsely a copyright in a public domain work. . . . false assertions of copyright are everywhere. In general, copyright belongs to the author of a published work . . . . Archives claim blanket copyright in everything in their collections, including historical works as to which copyright, which likely never belonged to the archive in the first place, has long expired.
. . . .
Corporate websites include blanket copyright notices even when they feature the U.S. flag . . . or rely on other materials squarely in the public domain. . . . many universities now pay licensing fees for virtually everything they reproduce and distribute to their students, whether warranted by copyright law or not.
. . . .
The limited penalties for copyfraud under the Copyright Act, coupled with weak enforcement of these provisions, give publishers an incentive to claim ownership, however spurious, in everything. . . . There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who, as a result of false copyright notices, refrain from legitimate copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to use for free.
Do you think this audio clip ( source) of a whale call could qualify for fair use in NOC (whale)? I just wrote the article, which is still very much a work-in-progress; I've included a link to the file in the "External links" section, but I think the article's quality and usefulness would be greatly increased if we could include it using {{ listen}}. Some things to consider ( WP:NFCC):
I think it qualifies for fair use, but I would appreciate a second or third opinion from more experienced editors. Thanks. Braincricket ( talk) 00:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
This file keeps getting deleted despite the fact that the author has licensed the image under a CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kapookababy/5860490436/in/photostream Ozarkshark ( talk) 10:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I've added a jpeg file to the Isaac Cole page and I'm now being requested to add a tag. I'm unsure as to which tag to add and would therefore require guidance. For information the file is a copy of a photo of my great grandfather, taken in England in 1906 and held within the family since then. I was under the impression that this would be outside of the copyright law due to it's age. Could you assist, please. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole1906 ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
These logos are Canadian. Do they pass threshold of originality in Canada? -- George Ho ( talk) 18:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I just uploaded a file, after checking Wikipedia copywrite requirments. I would like a second set of eyes to look at the copywrite, before I use the photo. The Caltrans page contains a copywrite notice.
Thanks for your help. Wikfr ( talk) 19:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
File:NordBEC.png seems to be too simple to be copyrightable. It should be changed to {{ PD-textlogo}}. Please comment. De728631 ( talk) 20:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
How would i upload images without any problem with or without the permission of the owner? -- Vunene ( talk) 13:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC) -- Glossante ( talk) 13:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
How would I know which images may be uploaded and which ones are copyrighted? -- Glossante ( talk) 13:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sketching out how I would like to improve ACM/IEEE Supercomputing Conference. A unique logo is designed for each year (all logos can be found here). I would like to include the logo for each year in the table in the "History" section (along with a significant amount of additional textual information and links). However, doing so would seem to fall afoul of the "use no more logos than necessary" clause. However, as all but the most recent logo are only of historical interest, and since adding the logos would make the article easier to navigate, I think this might be an exception to that rule. Comments? Garamond Lethe 04:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
This image of the judge is listed with "© July 2006 Woodward Avenue Action Association", but the terms and conditions seem to allow commercial and non-commercial electronic and non-electronic uses so long as attribution is made. I'm not seeing anything explicit about derivatives though to know for sure if this is something we could use. Any help is appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 00:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I have uploaded a newer version. Does this version meet WP:NFCC? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I got a Bot message on my talk page about licensing, but I really have no clue how to add a license to the file, and which license I add. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, TerryAga ( talk) 07:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add an image of Stugeron15 (a Cinnarizine medication) to a webpage, and I found images of the package on Google, how can I use one of these images on Wikipedia?
Cisabell ( talk) 20:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm creating a Wikipedia article for a contemporary sculptor. The sculptor has sent me a few photographs of her artwork that she had either a) taken herself or b) had someone else take at her request. Can you tell me what I need to do so that I can include these images in the article? Thank you! MartinMartin226 ( talk) 18:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
Photo of art|free licence for the photographer's contribution||{{
Non-free 3D art}}
}}
. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)File:The Master's College logo.png is a good example of a proper claim of fair use for a logo: it's being used in the infobox about the logo's owner to identify the owner. However, to satisfy the no-more-than-is-necessary chunk of the NFCC, does it need to be cropped to reduce the size of the white margins? Or do we ignore the margins for NFCC purposes, since they're obviously not copyrightable by themselves? Nyttend ( talk) 23:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
The Licensing section here states that particular image is ineligible for copyright, but I doubt that. The image is displayed in the Second Reality: it's not moving; just being displayed. -- 82.170.113.123 ( talk) 00:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear everyone. I have asked that question already at German Wikipedia but none was able to answer it and I was advised to request it here. I would like to take a screenshoot of that map while it shows the current presidential polls in the US election. Might I upload it at commons? I mean it's a simple map with colours, nothing that much special. Thanks in advance -- Jerchel ( talk) 12:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Please have a look at b:Animation:Master Features/Rendering/Toon Render, the images about the repainted Toy Story scene is a copyvio, or? I would tag them, but I'm not 100% about that kind of copyright. mabdul 19:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I have a book, published in 1969, that contains an image with a caption that says the image was made circa 1884. It has no other attribution information, but the book's author was not born in 1884, so I know it isn't his. I know the rule in the U.S. is that the image has to be published before 1923, not just created prior to then. But what does it mean to be published? Does it have to be published in a commerical, copyrighted work prior to then? If not, what is the threshold? I'd really like to use this image, but I'm not sure I have enough information to keep it from being deleted. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 15:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the great wealth of information. No wonder we have to have an entire noticeboard devoted to this! Based on some continued digging, I'm beginning to believe this photo comes from a personal collection that was subsequently donated to a state historical society. I've got an email in to confirm that it is the same one, since it is only described online and it's a three-hour drive for me to physically view the original. I didn't flat out ask about the copyright status in my initial query. My experience has been that libraries and historical societies often try to represent something as still being copyrighted even when it isn't so they can retain some kind of restriction on its redistribution. If I can confirm that this is the photograph that I suspect it is, I know the author died more than 100 years ago, but it sounds like that won't actually matter. What matters is when it was first made available to the public. At this point, I am not aware of any other publications that use this photo besides the 1969 work that I have. Hopefully, the author (or his/her heir) released all rights as a condition of donating the collection, but somehow I doubt I'll be so lucky! Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 18:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
For the Ansco article, I would like to include the following old advert:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/5022799996/
The flickr site has a Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) designation, but the image in question is a page from a magazine.
So, is it acceptable for Wikipedia, considering
Ansco stopped making films in 1977. Anscochrome name brand's trademark is expired, see: http://www.trademarkia.com/anscochrome-71678859.html The trademark owner, General Aniline & Film, no longer exists and the new owner does not market photographic products.
It seems to me that this is analogous to the situation of an image of a deceased person, no?
Thanks, -- Zeamays ( talk) 19:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hezbollah is deemed a terrorist organization by the United States, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Israel. The way I interpret this is that Hezbollah's flag [3] should be public domain at least in the U.S., because the International Emergency Economic Powers Act prohibits terrorist organizations from participating in commerce in the United States.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 22:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
To repeat part of what I already stated with regards to this situation on User talk:Futuretrillionaire: Being prohibited from engaging in commerce isn't necessarily the same as not being able to hold copyright unless there's a law (or regulation/case law/etc.) that says so. If there's a source or a series of sources which establish that such images are in the public domain, so much the better. VernoWhitney ( talk) 15:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question about proving that an image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. I uploaded this image: File:Product space from Atlas.png, extracted from the Atlas of Economic Complexity, which I sourced to http://atlas.media.mit.edu/book/. On that website, which is the only place where the Atlas has been published, it is stated that the work has been published under that license. However, another user still notified me of a file permission problem with the file, stating that there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. How do I prove that this is the case? Thanks, Claravdw ( talk) 13:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User_talk:TornadoLGS#File_permission_templates. Nathan2055 talk - contribs 16:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
How are non-free content tagged by this Template:Non-free USGov-IEEPA sanctions treated differently on the en WP than typical non-free logos? Does that make a difference when using such non-free content on the en WP? Does it mean that the content can't be used at all outside the U.S.? Are both treated the same?-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 19:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I have recently obtained permission to upload a photograph by a photographer who died less than 70 years ago to Wikipedia. What is the next step? Post the relevant permission somewhere on Wikipedia, send it to somebody, or just upload the image? Thanks in advance! Toccata quarta ( talk) 21:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I work at the LBJ Library and have been in communication with Robert Bolen at the USPS about the new Lady BIrd Forever Stamp that will be issued here on December 22, 2012, which would have been her 100th birthday. The stamp is copyrighted by the USPS but he has given me permission to post it on Wikipedia through the fair use agreement as long as I credit the USPS in the caption.
I cannot seem to find the proper permission. Can you help me? Margaretwmiller ( talk) 22:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)