![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
What is the copyright status of a new photograph of an old (1977) press release? A new editor wants to upload his 2013 photograph of a paper press release from The Kitchen, dated October 6th and 8th 1977. The editor has not uploaded the image yet because I told him I want to check to see if there would be a copyright problem or not. I don't even know if a paper press release (which was sent out to journalists) is a "publication" or not. Invertzoo ( talk) 12:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
He did put it in like that, but I think he selected the wrong one of the 6 alternatives as to "why you have the right to publish this work". Invertzoo ( talk) 22:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This file is shown as being the creator's own work with a copyright notice allowing free use. The picture is in fact a frame grab from somebody else's work. The original video can be found on You Tube, here. I B Wright ( talk) 13:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hie,
I am not sure of which tag should be used to describe my picture. I am writing an article on behalf of a solicitor whose picture needs to be uploaded on wikipedia. I got an error message stating that proper license tag has not been described. I am not sure which tag is appropriate for this type of image.
Image description: Portrait of a person showing his full face. Source is his website and author is himself.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkhead ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I am more or less new here, and I have never changed a picture. I am updating a page of a chess Grandmaster and i want to change his picture, but i am not sure about those rights, which picture i can post and what source i should put. So here is the link of the picture, and I am waiting for further instructions. http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&biw=1440&bih=775&tbm=isch&tbnid=8h4mkVGHnUYZTM:&imgrefurl=http://www.chess.com/news/magnus-carlsen-wins-tata-steel-2013-1412%3Fpage%3D3&docid=LImYkeSqFYtEOM&imgurl=http://files.chesscomfiles.com/images_users/tiny_mce/SonofPearl/Tata%2525202013%252520Round%25252013%252520Pentala%252520Harikrishna.jpg&w=635&h=720&ei=r_YwUa2zLszLsga-hoE4&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:46,s:0,i:231&iact=rc&dur=766&sig=114586334571911802549&page=2&tbnh=182&tbnw=152&start=22&ndsp=31&tx=70&ty=67
Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheshe4 ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I've posted an RFC regarding the public domain status of press/publicity photos produced between 1923 and 1977. Comments are welcome. – JBarta ( talk) 22:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saifullahrony ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been helping move images to the Commons and concerning these images ( File:Rebaudioside A.gif, File:Mogroside II E.gif, and File:Mogroside VI.gif), are they complex enough to qualify for copyright or do they still fall under PD-chem? And if they do fall under PD-chem, should I change it from the current copyright when I transfer them to the commons? ALH ( talk) 23:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
In September 1994, a person wrote to the letters page of the Daily Telegraph, and his letter was published. It's possible that the newspaper edited his letter for brevity or clarity, as most newspapers reserve the right to do. In any case, I now have in front of me a hard copy of what the newspaper published (his letter).
It is likely that the person may wish to freely license the text of his letter to the newspaper. If he does so, would it be acceptable for me to upload an image of how the newspaper printed his letter? (The purpose is to represent the sort of correspondence that occurred, in an article section that largely focuses on such correspondence and reactions to it.)
For clarity, as far as I can see, the only creative input the newspaper had into the depiction of the letter was their choice of font (which had been standard for a long time and was probably the same in the rest of the newspaper, so not exactly a creative choice), their convention of printing the name of the writer in all upper case, their listing of his address as "London W14" (both of these standards used by their newspaper for decades) and their three-word title to his letter. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 04:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
In adding a fair use image, where the only free image of a person available shows them in their later years after retiring, is it acceptable to include one showing the person working during their career as fair use?
Some examples might be sports figures, actors, or military notables. I assume that NFCC #1 is the most relevant criteria: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
Since in order to be included in WP, someone must be notable, it follows that the person's notability relies on what they did during their career. Hence, a photo of them during their career actively engaged in some profession, has value independent of and probably more important than a free, but recent image when they're retired. I'd like to know if those factors have been covered before? -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 04:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
re : File:Bat Creek Exam 5-28-10.JPG - can the submittor require under image attribution? or is attribution via page history appropriate? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I found a recording I would like to use in my business ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gesualdo-moro_lasso_al_mio_duolo.ogg). I know I can use music in the public domain, but many of your recordings do not appear to indicate what usage is appropriate. Can you tell me if the recording I am describing can be used for business purposes? 204.17.17.249 ( talk) 14:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Check File:Frog design logo.svg. This is a logo which is clearly below the threshold of originality and thus in the public domain, but it is listed as a copyrighted file. However, the problem is that it is an SVG file. Does the person who made the SVG file hold the copyright to the SVG source code as a computer program? If so, then the file should be tagged as replaceable fair use as the copyrighted SVG source code can be replaced by freely licensed SVG code. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Check File:WalsallWood.ogv. This film shows part of a match. Is the match itself protected by copyright? That is, does this film violate the copyright of the sports clubs and/or the individual players? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I created this SVG of a previously existing file, File:International Scout and Guide Fellowship.png, and simply copied the licensing information. I was notified that I had not provided ownership of copyright information and was required to answer the following three questions:
I have since updated the information, but am unsure if what I added is sufficient. Could someone please read through it and inform me if I need to add more? Thanks, Frigid Ninja 01:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to add this image to my page. File:Small RMC pub shot 2.jpg It was taken in 2002 by a photographer working for DOX Productions (a TV production compnay). The photographer gave me his permission to use the photo freely as he was instructed to by David Sington of Dox Productions who he was working for at the time. I have used it many times over the years including on the web and would like to use it on my wikipedia page. There seems to a problem uploading it. Any assistance you can give me would be very welcome. Thanks, Richard Corfield Clemrit ( talk) 11:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Per request on my talk page I added a non-free-use rationale to the image page. The rationale is being disputed, but I don’t understand why. My rationale seems quite clear.
Please respond on my talk page, as I am not actively checking my watch list. — Michael Z. 2013-03-06 16:38 z
Once in a while, I see people linking directly to an image in a fair use rationale. For example, File:1953 Playboy centerfold.jpg links to an external website where the image is used without permission from the copyright holder (depending on a fair use claim). WP:LINKVIO seems to forbid links directly to fair use images as the use is unfair outside the original context. In the same manner, I would not be surprised you can't link to the page on the website where the image is used if the purpose is to link to the image, as the other information on the page would be uninteresting in this situation. This means that the link has to be removed per WP:LINKVIO.
Problem: If the link is removed, then the image suddenly fails WP:NFCC#10a. In this case, the solution is easy: the image comes from a printed publication, so all you need to do is to indicate the name and issue number. However, there are lots of images where this wouldn't be feasible. For example, we have several hundreds of links to Find a Grave, and that website usually doesn't tell where the images come from. For example, how do you fix File:Adolph Toepperwein.jpg so that it neither violates WP:NFCC#10a nor WP:LINKVIO? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
This page has lists of favorites, so are these lists copyrighted? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to add File:Ph_seal_cavite.png, File:Ph_seal_batangas.png, File:Ph_seal_rizal.png and File:Ph_seal_quezon.png to the CALABARZON page but I got a message saying that these images failed the non-fair use policy. I checked the images and they all have fair-use rationales for the said page, so I'm guessing there's something I'm not getting? Thanks. NyanThousand ( talk) 16:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the images used in the Yachats, Oregon article? Some are on Commons and others are still on Wikipedia and tagged for transfer. I've gone through a few of them and tagged two— File:Amanda's Trail.jpg and File:Yachats Little Log Church.jpg—for deletion with {{ npd}}. I notified the uploader for the first image and then realized it would be kind of rude to keep posting notices. At least two of the images in the article are claimed to have been taken by "Elizabeth Gates," who probably isn't User:Crankelwitz (who uploaded many) and others are claimed to be by Dave Baldwin. In addition, this user on Commons, who uploaded at least one of the photos, seems to have some connection to the aforementioned Dave Baldwin. I'm unsure how to handle this. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Your input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Question_about_copyright_and_license would be appreciated. -- EEMIV ( talk) 05:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to use an image of the cover of a book written by the person who is the subject of a biography. The date was 1947, author is deceased, published by an academy that closed in the 1970s.
Where do I start?? Maineshepp ( talk) 18:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It is just text. I don't see any way to attach the file, as it's on my computer. I think it can visually draw attention to the discussion, underscore its significance. I could upload to Wikipedia if you wish. Maineshepp ( talk) 21:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
A 1947 publication would still generally be in copyright unless there are extenuating circumstances (such as UK Crown Copyright or some other overriding term). The only way I can see the text adding value is if the writing or font was somehow distinguishing or notable, and I can't think of any examples of that off the top of my head. Perhaps the text on an early cover of Mein Kampf (and, having invoked Godwin's law, we can now close this thread) might be significant if it's different from the more common cover. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I’m a media contributor. I just noticed that Wikimedia/Wikipedia listed CC-BY-SA as the recommended license for “own works” under Commons:Special:UploadWizard. Earlier it was CC-BY-SA+GFDL in the old upload form. Is there any specific reason for this change? Further I noticed that now all of our pages have a footnote “Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.” Earlier it was GFDL. Why? J Kadavoor J e e 14:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Flickr set.
These are images from
Halo 4, a video game so I would assume these are copyrighted and thus if I came across an image like this on Flickr normally, I would just move on. However,
Corrinne Yu (the uploader) is a programmer at
343 Industries, the copyright owner of the Halo series. She has uploaded images that she has directly worked on. Is it safe to assume that these images are free or would it need to be from the company directly for us to assume it's really free and that she hasn't just made a mistake in licensing?
James086
Talk 15:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
In the edit history there are many commons delinker edits. e.g. File: xyz has been removed, it has been deleted from commons by abc. Because: copyright violation. Does this type of edit history affect an article quality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhajking ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I stumble across this website containing some really good anatomical pictures that we could sure could use at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy. In the upper right corner of the website it says; "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License". I understand that I have to "attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". The owner of the website states "A resource site for teachers and students". My question is: Is it okay to upload pictures from the website to Commons and use them on Wikipedia, if I specify what the source is (and hence attribute to the author)? If so, would "fair use" (have very little understanding of the concept) limit the number of pictures it would be okay to upload at Commons? Thanks, JakobSteenberg ( talk) 20:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
From what I read on the article, this song was essentially commissioned by NASA. JPL plays the song in its entirety on a JPL produced video at this location that's even downloadable. Is this song technically, therefore, in the public domain (I'm speaking in terms of work-for-hire)? – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 08:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding File:Brian Shul in the cockpit of the SR-71 Blackbird.jpg, technically this image was very much taken during a Blackbird mission. But I've been wondering for a while now exactly what the copyright status of these images really are. (Apparently, according to outside Blackbird-employee reunions, people were annoyed that he took the time to photograph either himself, etc. during missions.) I would think technically this image is in the PD, but the book I retrieved it from, The Untouchables, does say at the beginning that the images are copyright 1988 Brian Shul, and that no image may be duplicated without written permission from the publishers. But if the images are PD, then wouldn't the reproductions in the book be as well? I know it's this way with paintings; not sure about photographs. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 03:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The only source for permission is this (Fig.3) which does not have copyright notice, but it is a link from this which clearly indicates that they reserve all rights. The uploader is not the owner of the image as mentioned in Talk:Inspiration_Mars_Foundation.
The uploader is not the owner of the image, but somehow he sets license to CC V.3. The person admitted in this talk page Talk:Inspiration_Mars_Foundation that he hasn't secure the license from the owner prior to the upload. So, this seems to be a clear violation.
This file seems to be another version of an image appeared in this (Fig.2) which again is from this link which clearly indicates that they reserve all rights.
This file, the uploader claims to represent the logo of Inspiration Mars Foundation with no reliable sources. The uploader claims to be the owner of the image. If that is true, it appears to be a derived work from File:Inspiration Mars Artist's Concept.png with some additions. Not sure if this is distinctive enough for the uploader to claim as separate copyrighted work. I don't think he can claim that as the "Inspiration MARS" part looks just like what the original rendering has. The half circle symbols is probably his own invention, which in itself should never been included in the Wikipedia due to lacking of reliable sources. Note that even on the official web page, they don't have such logo.
File:AlvyRaySmith_Lo-Res.jpg is a low-resolution 300x300 pixels version of an very high resolution portrait of me by Kathleen King, of Seattle, website www.kathleenkingphotography.com. She has given me rights to use this image anytime anywhere. What else do I have to do? I've tried to incorporate the information just given on the stated image file page, but it keeps getting rejected. It's my image, by Kathleen King, and I have full permissions from her for it. What else can I do? I've put it under Creative Commons 3.0 with attribution.
I find the instructions for this VERY difficult to follow, and I'm an imaging whiz supposedly! With great respect for permissions. I like that you are looking out for image rights, but surely there must be an easier way to follow the rules.
The copyright on this file File:Colin Pearson bowl.JPG has been queried as an image within an image. It is an image of a bowl, produced in quantity by a manufacturer, not an image of a work of art. What is the copyright status of such objects? Pelarmian ( talk) 09:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC) To clarify: I would guess that no-one may freely make an object to the same design, but does the maker own the right to reproducing photographic images of the object for the purposes of illustrating his work? Pelarmian ( talk) 09:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Do the provisions of {{ PD-BritishGov}} apply to the works of colonial governments in the British Empire? A long rabbit trail led me to File:QEII Stamp.jpg, which was deleted at PUI because of unclear copyright status. The Scott catalogue tells me that this stamp was issued (i.e. published) on 2 January 1956, so it would definitely be PD-BritishGov if it were a stamp of the United Kingdom instead of being issued for the government of colonial Sierra Leone. Or do we have to apply the copyright laws of Sierra Leone? The image itself is an unoriginal copy of the original stamp; there's no realistic chance for the uploader holding copyright, and the image was uploaded as PD-self anyway. Nyttend ( talk) 17:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Can any of the following be re-classified as {{ PD-text}}?
|
I would like to illustrate an article on a series of books with illustrations of two or possibly three of the typical dust jacket styles used to aid identification of the books. Is this going to infringe the copyright of the original designer/publisher of the dust jacket or, because it is my photograph, will I hold the copyright of that particular image? The original books were published from 1960-1983 and the designer of the jackets died in 1998. I have not written the article yet. Apologies if the answer is covered elsewhere, I could not see it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Millar ( talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, that is helpful. I realise, though, that I was possibly a little unclear in my original question. I would like to take photographs of a small number of existing book jackets to illustrate an proposed article on the Phoenix Living Poets series. Several of the poets published are significant and have their own pages elsewhere on Wikipedia. I had no involvement at all in the production of the book jackets but it would make the article easier to follow if I could illustrate the two, possibly three, main types of jacket used. I suspect from your helpful responses that I need to develop a non-free rationale once I have at least started the article. Does that sound correct? Thank you again for being so helpful. Steve Millar ( talk) 22:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'm searching for a policy on the copyright status of screen captures from television programs. Specifically, I'd like an official policy stating, if it's true, that screen captures from a television program are derivative works of that program and as such they have the same legal status as the whole program and that such images usually can't be uploaded to commons.
I have looked at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, Wikipedia:Copyrights and Commons:Derivative works but found no clear statement. Wikipedia:Non-free content talks about fair use policy of such screenshots but also doesn't give a clear statement on the copyright status.
I'm asking this because an editor has asked about this on the w:hu Village Pump, and I can't find a policy page to link to. Whether the page is on commons or here doesn't matter.
Thanks in advance. – b_jonas 11:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This image has been given a CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication by the editor who claims ownership. However its a photograph of an oil painting made in England in 1905, stated to be by Edgar Bundy. There is no information whether its an image of the whole of or just part of the painting. Now according to wikipedia, Bundy died in 1922 which is less than one hundred years ago. So should this image have a {{ Licensed-PD-Art}} template and does this image has the correct copyright information? The image File:Day of Sedgemoor, The-Edgar Bundy.jpg, for instance, by the same painter claims to be in the public domain in Europe (life of author plus 70 years but it has no information in respect of the USA; whereas File:Stradshp.jpg, also by Bundy, is stated to be in the Public Domain in the USA since it was created prior to 1923. Pyrotec ( talk) 11:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
file:John K Castle.jpg is a copyright image owned by John K. Castle and his firm Castle Harlan that John K. Castle has authorized for publication on his wiki page. Permission for mounting this file was requested weeks ago with no answer from Wikipedia. Attempts to mount this image today were rebuffed. What does one do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlh070945 ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I recently uploaded File:Almyra M73.jpg, which was given to me by someone at the Arkansas Department of Aeronautics. I have photos for the rest of Arkansas's public use airports but wanted to ensure the proper license before batch uploading. They were taken by the Civil Air Patrol, which is a division of the United States Air Force so I believe Template:PD-USGov-Military-Air Force applies. Could someone with more experience in the area confirm or deny this? Thanks Brandonrush ( talk) 19:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to know: (1) What is the copyright status of the works of a Canadian painter who died in 1958?
(2) In 1958, before his death, the painter (a resident of Toronto) made a portrait ordered and owned by the province of Ontario (i.e., the government); what is ths copyright status of this work? Thank you,
Aviados (
talk) 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm surprised to see the fair use tag on this one : shouldn't it be PD-old, since the artiste died in 1937, more than 70 years ago ?
Regards, Esprit Fugace ( talk) 13:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, logos can be public domain if they only consist of text. However, is this the case according to Japanese law? I'm asking these because of these two logos: this and this, which would appear to be ineligible for copyright in the US. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 13:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This questions concerns the usability of text and (more importantly) images from [2], which contains this notice:
Also, at the bottom of [3] we find
Maybe I'm having a senior moment, but isn't there a conflict between the statement of copyright and the Creative Commons permission. As I write that I have the feeling there's not, but now that I've begun I might as well get an answer from the experts.
So, can I import images from this article to WP and/or Commons? If so, which of the zillions of licensing tags should I use? (If someone wants to be really kindhearted, he or she might go through the motions on this image [4] to give me an example to work from.)
Thanks. EEng ( talk) 15:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. I guess my point is that it's a trap for the unwary to have "pages" and "categories" with indistinguishable names, so that I (for example) -- not realizing there's even a difference -- thought I was seeing everything "Gage" when in fact I was only seeing someone's selected subset. EEng ( talk)
I need a bit of input from some knowledgable copyright folks on this one... One of the WEP students on
Marquette Uni's Neurobiology course has located a couple of brain scans which she wishes to use in an article about Aicardi–Goutières syndrome (currently a sandbox draft). The scans are located online
here, at Science Direct, and appear to be copyrighted by
Elsevier, so at first glance, we can't use them here.
However, it seems to me that a case could be made for fair use of these images. There's unlikely to be a free equivalent - this is a very rare brain disorder, and unless some of our editors have access to an Aicardi–Goutières patient and an MRI scanner (in which case, message me!) I can't see a free version being made available. It/they would only be used in a single article (the scans are pretty much irrelevent elesewhere), and would enhance a reader's understanding of the subject. I won't go through the rest of the FU requirements here, but suffice to say I think the images would meet them. That said, image copyright isn't my specialist subject; I'd appreciate some advice from those of you for whom it is. Thanks,
Yunshui
雲
水 07:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Miss Independent music video.png – The image is a low resolution screenshot of the accompanying music video of " Miss Independent", and I've added a little bit more explanation in the purpose text the reason for including it there. It is a also not a random scene, identification and critical commentary on the music video section of the article. So should it be deleted? Chihciboy ( talk) 12:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Kantragada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilrajkaddala ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
A user uploaded File:Harlem Shake meme B-Town ASU.jpg under a PD license, which are screengrabs from a YouTube video. The video is clearly self-created (but not likely by the editor that uploaded the image) so its not a question of original copyright On the video's page, the uploaded states in the description that the video is in the public domain, but the licensing is the default YT license, which presumes copyright to the video's owner. Clearly there's a conflict between these two. Short of contacting the video owner to get them to correct the conflict, what should be done in a case like this? If the video owner suggests PD that would seem to override the more restrictive YT license, and thus making the screengrabs free, but there's the possibility that the more restrictive YT license overrides that (since it's formalized out). -- MASEM ( t) 17:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
... Correct? -- Brandt Luke Zorn ( talk) 18:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I recieved a note on the incomplete information I provided for File:Valérie_Bemeriki.jpg. I've responded, does this answer the mentioned criteria (1 and 10b)? I'll make the mentioned adjustments. Thanks for the patience, this is the first time I've uploaded an image. PZAJ ( talk) 20:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I posted a question at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright that pertains to some files currently listed here at en:WP as non-free logos. Input there is welcome. – JBarta ( talk) 22:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea how to reduce File:Elio Motors Production Shot.jpg, is someone able to do that? Ryan Vesey 17:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Done, Plus I deleted the other two versions.--
SPhilbrick
(Talk) 17:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
How did the copyright renewal process work for paintings — was it the same as for printed works? The Detroit Industry Murals were painted in the early 1930s, so they're definitely from the renewal-required time period, and their painter was a foreigner, so it's probably a little more possible that he would have forgotten to renew them. Nyttend ( talk) 03:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I have purchased an original glossy International News Photo dated 1944 that does not carry a copyright notice. According to the [ Library of Congress ] information very few of these were copyrighted during that period. Unlike a book or other bound work this photographic image does not have a title. Even the US Copyright Office [ Circular 22 ] states that searches are not always conclusive. My question is how much research must I do to "prove" it is in the public domain? If it was never copyrighted it is very difficult to prove the negative. Any editor could disupte the rationale for PD with a claim that the research wasn't sufficient. Blue Riband►
Hello, These two images are available publicly for usage;
Why is there a deletion tag on them ? please notify me why and how to avoid that happening. Thank you. Best Regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrox2 ( talk • contribs)
I bought this painting at an Estate sale and Frederick Ruple the artist lived from 1871 to 1938. I want to show a different painting he did. He normaly painted portraits and battle scens from the civil war. I bought a postcard and the copy right on the back says: CURTEICHCOLOR 3-D NATURAL COLOR REPRODUCTIONS(REG. U.S. PAT. OFF) The painting is named "Battle of Paris" if you go google images of Frederick Ruple you will see the 3 postcard images I would like to put in the article. Am I allowed to put a copy of the painting that I have in the article? Shall I copyright the painting first so I own the copyright? Am I allowed to put an image of the 3 postcards in the article about Frederick Ruple?
-- Creative Hansen ( talk) 21:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I own a lithograph of a pretty famous painter. There were 200 in the series. It was produced in the late '60s or early '70s. She's now deceased. If I take a picture of the lithograph I own, can I post that as Creative Commons/PD? Or is the image itself owned by her estate? If it's owned by the estate, and all works by the artist are still copyrighted, can I post it anyway as fair use in her article which has no images? 108.54.26.164 ( talk) 21:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. We've got a discussion going on the Canadian noticeboard about the recent release of a lot of useful cartographic material released under this license. There is some disagreement whether this meets our GFDL/CC requirements. Any expert advice would be appreciated - these maps would be very beneficial to Canadian geography articles. The Interior (Talk) 23:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Can I give link to Facebook page created by me, it is social, not personal Vijayaivalli ( talk) 15:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have a series of a few videos on Youtube. I am a professional photographer and filmmaker. I have shot, produced, edited and published these videos myself with the music and all. I've put in several hours of work on these films. These videos feature the art of an ebru artist. We made a bunch of these one night but recently had a falling out. He re-uploaded these same videos from my channel onto his channel. You can clearly see my name on the copyright and at the end in the credits. Who has the rights to these films? I mean these are MY images and the movies are the fruit of MY labors with the editing and the music and all. What is the situation in a case like this? Here's a link to one of the videos in question, all videos are similar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36EYBCTK1_8
Jpbrunel ( talk) 23:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC) JP
Per a discussion at Talk:Planet of the Apes (novel)#EL I have a question regarding a link that was removed after nearly three years on the Planet of the Apes (novel) article. We only want to link to the site, not reuse the images on Wikipedia. This is how the EL appeared:
La Planète des singes at The Sacred Scrolls - History of the novel's international editions with book cover images.
We want to narrow the question here to whether or not WP:ELNEVER prohibits linking to this site in regards to the images. As pointed out on the Talk page, it's worth bearing in mind that image use on another site doesn't have to meet our FUR criteria (which is set above the legal criteria), just the legally understood definition. In this case, FU usually applies if the images being used are of sufficiently low resolution, do not hurt the copyright owners commercial prospects nor are used to generate an income. If you can clear using The Sacred Scrolls site as an EL concerning copyright issues, we'll take it from there. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 16:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to upload some television screenshots but am having trouble figuring out how to do so. I think these would be helpful in illustrating certain articles: [7], [8], [9], [10] [11]. Can comply with the copyright criteria? -- 1ST7 ( talk) 20:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Is the name "Voyeur" for a band name copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.208.36 ( talk) 17:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
What do I have to do to upload this image file to Wikipedia? I followed the steps however I was told not to upload it if I had no real Copyright claim to it. I can't see why MGM would object to it since they allow most all main stream film's images to be uploaded. I have the image on file in my pictures but this is where it came from: [12] Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by KentuckyBootleg ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
If anyone has words of advice or encouragement to this good faith new user, User talk:Prairie dog yeah#Photo who appears to have a bit of a copyvio issue on an image they have some kind of permission to use. Please help and comment on their user page. Thanks. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 19:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
What is the copyright status of a new photograph of an old (1977) press release? A new editor wants to upload his 2013 photograph of a paper press release from The Kitchen, dated October 6th and 8th 1977. The editor has not uploaded the image yet because I told him I want to check to see if there would be a copyright problem or not. I don't even know if a paper press release (which was sent out to journalists) is a "publication" or not. Invertzoo ( talk) 12:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
He did put it in like that, but I think he selected the wrong one of the 6 alternatives as to "why you have the right to publish this work". Invertzoo ( talk) 22:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This file is shown as being the creator's own work with a copyright notice allowing free use. The picture is in fact a frame grab from somebody else's work. The original video can be found on You Tube, here. I B Wright ( talk) 13:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hie,
I am not sure of which tag should be used to describe my picture. I am writing an article on behalf of a solicitor whose picture needs to be uploaded on wikipedia. I got an error message stating that proper license tag has not been described. I am not sure which tag is appropriate for this type of image.
Image description: Portrait of a person showing his full face. Source is his website and author is himself.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkhead ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I am more or less new here, and I have never changed a picture. I am updating a page of a chess Grandmaster and i want to change his picture, but i am not sure about those rights, which picture i can post and what source i should put. So here is the link of the picture, and I am waiting for further instructions. http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&biw=1440&bih=775&tbm=isch&tbnid=8h4mkVGHnUYZTM:&imgrefurl=http://www.chess.com/news/magnus-carlsen-wins-tata-steel-2013-1412%3Fpage%3D3&docid=LImYkeSqFYtEOM&imgurl=http://files.chesscomfiles.com/images_users/tiny_mce/SonofPearl/Tata%2525202013%252520Round%25252013%252520Pentala%252520Harikrishna.jpg&w=635&h=720&ei=r_YwUa2zLszLsga-hoE4&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:46,s:0,i:231&iact=rc&dur=766&sig=114586334571911802549&page=2&tbnh=182&tbnw=152&start=22&ndsp=31&tx=70&ty=67
Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheshe4 ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I've posted an RFC regarding the public domain status of press/publicity photos produced between 1923 and 1977. Comments are welcome. – JBarta ( talk) 22:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saifullahrony ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been helping move images to the Commons and concerning these images ( File:Rebaudioside A.gif, File:Mogroside II E.gif, and File:Mogroside VI.gif), are they complex enough to qualify for copyright or do they still fall under PD-chem? And if they do fall under PD-chem, should I change it from the current copyright when I transfer them to the commons? ALH ( talk) 23:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
In September 1994, a person wrote to the letters page of the Daily Telegraph, and his letter was published. It's possible that the newspaper edited his letter for brevity or clarity, as most newspapers reserve the right to do. In any case, I now have in front of me a hard copy of what the newspaper published (his letter).
It is likely that the person may wish to freely license the text of his letter to the newspaper. If he does so, would it be acceptable for me to upload an image of how the newspaper printed his letter? (The purpose is to represent the sort of correspondence that occurred, in an article section that largely focuses on such correspondence and reactions to it.)
For clarity, as far as I can see, the only creative input the newspaper had into the depiction of the letter was their choice of font (which had been standard for a long time and was probably the same in the rest of the newspaper, so not exactly a creative choice), their convention of printing the name of the writer in all upper case, their listing of his address as "London W14" (both of these standards used by their newspaper for decades) and their three-word title to his letter. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 04:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
In adding a fair use image, where the only free image of a person available shows them in their later years after retiring, is it acceptable to include one showing the person working during their career as fair use?
Some examples might be sports figures, actors, or military notables. I assume that NFCC #1 is the most relevant criteria: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
Since in order to be included in WP, someone must be notable, it follows that the person's notability relies on what they did during their career. Hence, a photo of them during their career actively engaged in some profession, has value independent of and probably more important than a free, but recent image when they're retired. I'd like to know if those factors have been covered before? -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 04:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
re : File:Bat Creek Exam 5-28-10.JPG - can the submittor require under image attribution? or is attribution via page history appropriate? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I found a recording I would like to use in my business ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gesualdo-moro_lasso_al_mio_duolo.ogg). I know I can use music in the public domain, but many of your recordings do not appear to indicate what usage is appropriate. Can you tell me if the recording I am describing can be used for business purposes? 204.17.17.249 ( talk) 14:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Check File:Frog design logo.svg. This is a logo which is clearly below the threshold of originality and thus in the public domain, but it is listed as a copyrighted file. However, the problem is that it is an SVG file. Does the person who made the SVG file hold the copyright to the SVG source code as a computer program? If so, then the file should be tagged as replaceable fair use as the copyrighted SVG source code can be replaced by freely licensed SVG code. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Check File:WalsallWood.ogv. This film shows part of a match. Is the match itself protected by copyright? That is, does this film violate the copyright of the sports clubs and/or the individual players? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I created this SVG of a previously existing file, File:International Scout and Guide Fellowship.png, and simply copied the licensing information. I was notified that I had not provided ownership of copyright information and was required to answer the following three questions:
I have since updated the information, but am unsure if what I added is sufficient. Could someone please read through it and inform me if I need to add more? Thanks, Frigid Ninja 01:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to add this image to my page. File:Small RMC pub shot 2.jpg It was taken in 2002 by a photographer working for DOX Productions (a TV production compnay). The photographer gave me his permission to use the photo freely as he was instructed to by David Sington of Dox Productions who he was working for at the time. I have used it many times over the years including on the web and would like to use it on my wikipedia page. There seems to a problem uploading it. Any assistance you can give me would be very welcome. Thanks, Richard Corfield Clemrit ( talk) 11:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Per request on my talk page I added a non-free-use rationale to the image page. The rationale is being disputed, but I don’t understand why. My rationale seems quite clear.
Please respond on my talk page, as I am not actively checking my watch list. — Michael Z. 2013-03-06 16:38 z
Once in a while, I see people linking directly to an image in a fair use rationale. For example, File:1953 Playboy centerfold.jpg links to an external website where the image is used without permission from the copyright holder (depending on a fair use claim). WP:LINKVIO seems to forbid links directly to fair use images as the use is unfair outside the original context. In the same manner, I would not be surprised you can't link to the page on the website where the image is used if the purpose is to link to the image, as the other information on the page would be uninteresting in this situation. This means that the link has to be removed per WP:LINKVIO.
Problem: If the link is removed, then the image suddenly fails WP:NFCC#10a. In this case, the solution is easy: the image comes from a printed publication, so all you need to do is to indicate the name and issue number. However, there are lots of images where this wouldn't be feasible. For example, we have several hundreds of links to Find a Grave, and that website usually doesn't tell where the images come from. For example, how do you fix File:Adolph Toepperwein.jpg so that it neither violates WP:NFCC#10a nor WP:LINKVIO? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
This page has lists of favorites, so are these lists copyrighted? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to add File:Ph_seal_cavite.png, File:Ph_seal_batangas.png, File:Ph_seal_rizal.png and File:Ph_seal_quezon.png to the CALABARZON page but I got a message saying that these images failed the non-fair use policy. I checked the images and they all have fair-use rationales for the said page, so I'm guessing there's something I'm not getting? Thanks. NyanThousand ( talk) 16:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the images used in the Yachats, Oregon article? Some are on Commons and others are still on Wikipedia and tagged for transfer. I've gone through a few of them and tagged two— File:Amanda's Trail.jpg and File:Yachats Little Log Church.jpg—for deletion with {{ npd}}. I notified the uploader for the first image and then realized it would be kind of rude to keep posting notices. At least two of the images in the article are claimed to have been taken by "Elizabeth Gates," who probably isn't User:Crankelwitz (who uploaded many) and others are claimed to be by Dave Baldwin. In addition, this user on Commons, who uploaded at least one of the photos, seems to have some connection to the aforementioned Dave Baldwin. I'm unsure how to handle this. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Your input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Question_about_copyright_and_license would be appreciated. -- EEMIV ( talk) 05:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to use an image of the cover of a book written by the person who is the subject of a biography. The date was 1947, author is deceased, published by an academy that closed in the 1970s.
Where do I start?? Maineshepp ( talk) 18:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It is just text. I don't see any way to attach the file, as it's on my computer. I think it can visually draw attention to the discussion, underscore its significance. I could upload to Wikipedia if you wish. Maineshepp ( talk) 21:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
A 1947 publication would still generally be in copyright unless there are extenuating circumstances (such as UK Crown Copyright or some other overriding term). The only way I can see the text adding value is if the writing or font was somehow distinguishing or notable, and I can't think of any examples of that off the top of my head. Perhaps the text on an early cover of Mein Kampf (and, having invoked Godwin's law, we can now close this thread) might be significant if it's different from the more common cover. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I’m a media contributor. I just noticed that Wikimedia/Wikipedia listed CC-BY-SA as the recommended license for “own works” under Commons:Special:UploadWizard. Earlier it was CC-BY-SA+GFDL in the old upload form. Is there any specific reason for this change? Further I noticed that now all of our pages have a footnote “Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.” Earlier it was GFDL. Why? J Kadavoor J e e 14:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Flickr set.
These are images from
Halo 4, a video game so I would assume these are copyrighted and thus if I came across an image like this on Flickr normally, I would just move on. However,
Corrinne Yu (the uploader) is a programmer at
343 Industries, the copyright owner of the Halo series. She has uploaded images that she has directly worked on. Is it safe to assume that these images are free or would it need to be from the company directly for us to assume it's really free and that she hasn't just made a mistake in licensing?
James086
Talk 15:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
In the edit history there are many commons delinker edits. e.g. File: xyz has been removed, it has been deleted from commons by abc. Because: copyright violation. Does this type of edit history affect an article quality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhajking ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I stumble across this website containing some really good anatomical pictures that we could sure could use at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy. In the upper right corner of the website it says; "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License". I understand that I have to "attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". The owner of the website states "A resource site for teachers and students". My question is: Is it okay to upload pictures from the website to Commons and use them on Wikipedia, if I specify what the source is (and hence attribute to the author)? If so, would "fair use" (have very little understanding of the concept) limit the number of pictures it would be okay to upload at Commons? Thanks, JakobSteenberg ( talk) 20:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
From what I read on the article, this song was essentially commissioned by NASA. JPL plays the song in its entirety on a JPL produced video at this location that's even downloadable. Is this song technically, therefore, in the public domain (I'm speaking in terms of work-for-hire)? – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 08:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding File:Brian Shul in the cockpit of the SR-71 Blackbird.jpg, technically this image was very much taken during a Blackbird mission. But I've been wondering for a while now exactly what the copyright status of these images really are. (Apparently, according to outside Blackbird-employee reunions, people were annoyed that he took the time to photograph either himself, etc. during missions.) I would think technically this image is in the PD, but the book I retrieved it from, The Untouchables, does say at the beginning that the images are copyright 1988 Brian Shul, and that no image may be duplicated without written permission from the publishers. But if the images are PD, then wouldn't the reproductions in the book be as well? I know it's this way with paintings; not sure about photographs. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 03:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The only source for permission is this (Fig.3) which does not have copyright notice, but it is a link from this which clearly indicates that they reserve all rights. The uploader is not the owner of the image as mentioned in Talk:Inspiration_Mars_Foundation.
The uploader is not the owner of the image, but somehow he sets license to CC V.3. The person admitted in this talk page Talk:Inspiration_Mars_Foundation that he hasn't secure the license from the owner prior to the upload. So, this seems to be a clear violation.
This file seems to be another version of an image appeared in this (Fig.2) which again is from this link which clearly indicates that they reserve all rights.
This file, the uploader claims to represent the logo of Inspiration Mars Foundation with no reliable sources. The uploader claims to be the owner of the image. If that is true, it appears to be a derived work from File:Inspiration Mars Artist's Concept.png with some additions. Not sure if this is distinctive enough for the uploader to claim as separate copyrighted work. I don't think he can claim that as the "Inspiration MARS" part looks just like what the original rendering has. The half circle symbols is probably his own invention, which in itself should never been included in the Wikipedia due to lacking of reliable sources. Note that even on the official web page, they don't have such logo.
File:AlvyRaySmith_Lo-Res.jpg is a low-resolution 300x300 pixels version of an very high resolution portrait of me by Kathleen King, of Seattle, website www.kathleenkingphotography.com. She has given me rights to use this image anytime anywhere. What else do I have to do? I've tried to incorporate the information just given on the stated image file page, but it keeps getting rejected. It's my image, by Kathleen King, and I have full permissions from her for it. What else can I do? I've put it under Creative Commons 3.0 with attribution.
I find the instructions for this VERY difficult to follow, and I'm an imaging whiz supposedly! With great respect for permissions. I like that you are looking out for image rights, but surely there must be an easier way to follow the rules.
The copyright on this file File:Colin Pearson bowl.JPG has been queried as an image within an image. It is an image of a bowl, produced in quantity by a manufacturer, not an image of a work of art. What is the copyright status of such objects? Pelarmian ( talk) 09:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC) To clarify: I would guess that no-one may freely make an object to the same design, but does the maker own the right to reproducing photographic images of the object for the purposes of illustrating his work? Pelarmian ( talk) 09:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Do the provisions of {{ PD-BritishGov}} apply to the works of colonial governments in the British Empire? A long rabbit trail led me to File:QEII Stamp.jpg, which was deleted at PUI because of unclear copyright status. The Scott catalogue tells me that this stamp was issued (i.e. published) on 2 January 1956, so it would definitely be PD-BritishGov if it were a stamp of the United Kingdom instead of being issued for the government of colonial Sierra Leone. Or do we have to apply the copyright laws of Sierra Leone? The image itself is an unoriginal copy of the original stamp; there's no realistic chance for the uploader holding copyright, and the image was uploaded as PD-self anyway. Nyttend ( talk) 17:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Can any of the following be re-classified as {{ PD-text}}?
|
I would like to illustrate an article on a series of books with illustrations of two or possibly three of the typical dust jacket styles used to aid identification of the books. Is this going to infringe the copyright of the original designer/publisher of the dust jacket or, because it is my photograph, will I hold the copyright of that particular image? The original books were published from 1960-1983 and the designer of the jackets died in 1998. I have not written the article yet. Apologies if the answer is covered elsewhere, I could not see it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Millar ( talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, that is helpful. I realise, though, that I was possibly a little unclear in my original question. I would like to take photographs of a small number of existing book jackets to illustrate an proposed article on the Phoenix Living Poets series. Several of the poets published are significant and have their own pages elsewhere on Wikipedia. I had no involvement at all in the production of the book jackets but it would make the article easier to follow if I could illustrate the two, possibly three, main types of jacket used. I suspect from your helpful responses that I need to develop a non-free rationale once I have at least started the article. Does that sound correct? Thank you again for being so helpful. Steve Millar ( talk) 22:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'm searching for a policy on the copyright status of screen captures from television programs. Specifically, I'd like an official policy stating, if it's true, that screen captures from a television program are derivative works of that program and as such they have the same legal status as the whole program and that such images usually can't be uploaded to commons.
I have looked at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, Wikipedia:Copyrights and Commons:Derivative works but found no clear statement. Wikipedia:Non-free content talks about fair use policy of such screenshots but also doesn't give a clear statement on the copyright status.
I'm asking this because an editor has asked about this on the w:hu Village Pump, and I can't find a policy page to link to. Whether the page is on commons or here doesn't matter.
Thanks in advance. – b_jonas 11:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This image has been given a CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication by the editor who claims ownership. However its a photograph of an oil painting made in England in 1905, stated to be by Edgar Bundy. There is no information whether its an image of the whole of or just part of the painting. Now according to wikipedia, Bundy died in 1922 which is less than one hundred years ago. So should this image have a {{ Licensed-PD-Art}} template and does this image has the correct copyright information? The image File:Day of Sedgemoor, The-Edgar Bundy.jpg, for instance, by the same painter claims to be in the public domain in Europe (life of author plus 70 years but it has no information in respect of the USA; whereas File:Stradshp.jpg, also by Bundy, is stated to be in the Public Domain in the USA since it was created prior to 1923. Pyrotec ( talk) 11:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
file:John K Castle.jpg is a copyright image owned by John K. Castle and his firm Castle Harlan that John K. Castle has authorized for publication on his wiki page. Permission for mounting this file was requested weeks ago with no answer from Wikipedia. Attempts to mount this image today were rebuffed. What does one do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlh070945 ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I recently uploaded File:Almyra M73.jpg, which was given to me by someone at the Arkansas Department of Aeronautics. I have photos for the rest of Arkansas's public use airports but wanted to ensure the proper license before batch uploading. They were taken by the Civil Air Patrol, which is a division of the United States Air Force so I believe Template:PD-USGov-Military-Air Force applies. Could someone with more experience in the area confirm or deny this? Thanks Brandonrush ( talk) 19:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to know: (1) What is the copyright status of the works of a Canadian painter who died in 1958?
(2) In 1958, before his death, the painter (a resident of Toronto) made a portrait ordered and owned by the province of Ontario (i.e., the government); what is ths copyright status of this work? Thank you,
Aviados (
talk) 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm surprised to see the fair use tag on this one : shouldn't it be PD-old, since the artiste died in 1937, more than 70 years ago ?
Regards, Esprit Fugace ( talk) 13:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, logos can be public domain if they only consist of text. However, is this the case according to Japanese law? I'm asking these because of these two logos: this and this, which would appear to be ineligible for copyright in the US. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 13:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This questions concerns the usability of text and (more importantly) images from [2], which contains this notice:
Also, at the bottom of [3] we find
Maybe I'm having a senior moment, but isn't there a conflict between the statement of copyright and the Creative Commons permission. As I write that I have the feeling there's not, but now that I've begun I might as well get an answer from the experts.
So, can I import images from this article to WP and/or Commons? If so, which of the zillions of licensing tags should I use? (If someone wants to be really kindhearted, he or she might go through the motions on this image [4] to give me an example to work from.)
Thanks. EEng ( talk) 15:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. I guess my point is that it's a trap for the unwary to have "pages" and "categories" with indistinguishable names, so that I (for example) -- not realizing there's even a difference -- thought I was seeing everything "Gage" when in fact I was only seeing someone's selected subset. EEng ( talk)
I need a bit of input from some knowledgable copyright folks on this one... One of the WEP students on
Marquette Uni's Neurobiology course has located a couple of brain scans which she wishes to use in an article about Aicardi–Goutières syndrome (currently a sandbox draft). The scans are located online
here, at Science Direct, and appear to be copyrighted by
Elsevier, so at first glance, we can't use them here.
However, it seems to me that a case could be made for fair use of these images. There's unlikely to be a free equivalent - this is a very rare brain disorder, and unless some of our editors have access to an Aicardi–Goutières patient and an MRI scanner (in which case, message me!) I can't see a free version being made available. It/they would only be used in a single article (the scans are pretty much irrelevent elesewhere), and would enhance a reader's understanding of the subject. I won't go through the rest of the FU requirements here, but suffice to say I think the images would meet them. That said, image copyright isn't my specialist subject; I'd appreciate some advice from those of you for whom it is. Thanks,
Yunshui
雲
水 07:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Miss Independent music video.png – The image is a low resolution screenshot of the accompanying music video of " Miss Independent", and I've added a little bit more explanation in the purpose text the reason for including it there. It is a also not a random scene, identification and critical commentary on the music video section of the article. So should it be deleted? Chihciboy ( talk) 12:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Kantragada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilrajkaddala ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
A user uploaded File:Harlem Shake meme B-Town ASU.jpg under a PD license, which are screengrabs from a YouTube video. The video is clearly self-created (but not likely by the editor that uploaded the image) so its not a question of original copyright On the video's page, the uploaded states in the description that the video is in the public domain, but the licensing is the default YT license, which presumes copyright to the video's owner. Clearly there's a conflict between these two. Short of contacting the video owner to get them to correct the conflict, what should be done in a case like this? If the video owner suggests PD that would seem to override the more restrictive YT license, and thus making the screengrabs free, but there's the possibility that the more restrictive YT license overrides that (since it's formalized out). -- MASEM ( t) 17:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
... Correct? -- Brandt Luke Zorn ( talk) 18:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I recieved a note on the incomplete information I provided for File:Valérie_Bemeriki.jpg. I've responded, does this answer the mentioned criteria (1 and 10b)? I'll make the mentioned adjustments. Thanks for the patience, this is the first time I've uploaded an image. PZAJ ( talk) 20:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I posted a question at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright that pertains to some files currently listed here at en:WP as non-free logos. Input there is welcome. – JBarta ( talk) 22:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea how to reduce File:Elio Motors Production Shot.jpg, is someone able to do that? Ryan Vesey 17:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Done, Plus I deleted the other two versions.--
SPhilbrick
(Talk) 17:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
How did the copyright renewal process work for paintings — was it the same as for printed works? The Detroit Industry Murals were painted in the early 1930s, so they're definitely from the renewal-required time period, and their painter was a foreigner, so it's probably a little more possible that he would have forgotten to renew them. Nyttend ( talk) 03:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I have purchased an original glossy International News Photo dated 1944 that does not carry a copyright notice. According to the [ Library of Congress ] information very few of these were copyrighted during that period. Unlike a book or other bound work this photographic image does not have a title. Even the US Copyright Office [ Circular 22 ] states that searches are not always conclusive. My question is how much research must I do to "prove" it is in the public domain? If it was never copyrighted it is very difficult to prove the negative. Any editor could disupte the rationale for PD with a claim that the research wasn't sufficient. Blue Riband►
Hello, These two images are available publicly for usage;
Why is there a deletion tag on them ? please notify me why and how to avoid that happening. Thank you. Best Regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrox2 ( talk • contribs)
I bought this painting at an Estate sale and Frederick Ruple the artist lived from 1871 to 1938. I want to show a different painting he did. He normaly painted portraits and battle scens from the civil war. I bought a postcard and the copy right on the back says: CURTEICHCOLOR 3-D NATURAL COLOR REPRODUCTIONS(REG. U.S. PAT. OFF) The painting is named "Battle of Paris" if you go google images of Frederick Ruple you will see the 3 postcard images I would like to put in the article. Am I allowed to put a copy of the painting that I have in the article? Shall I copyright the painting first so I own the copyright? Am I allowed to put an image of the 3 postcards in the article about Frederick Ruple?
-- Creative Hansen ( talk) 21:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I own a lithograph of a pretty famous painter. There were 200 in the series. It was produced in the late '60s or early '70s. She's now deceased. If I take a picture of the lithograph I own, can I post that as Creative Commons/PD? Or is the image itself owned by her estate? If it's owned by the estate, and all works by the artist are still copyrighted, can I post it anyway as fair use in her article which has no images? 108.54.26.164 ( talk) 21:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. We've got a discussion going on the Canadian noticeboard about the recent release of a lot of useful cartographic material released under this license. There is some disagreement whether this meets our GFDL/CC requirements. Any expert advice would be appreciated - these maps would be very beneficial to Canadian geography articles. The Interior (Talk) 23:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Can I give link to Facebook page created by me, it is social, not personal Vijayaivalli ( talk) 15:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have a series of a few videos on Youtube. I am a professional photographer and filmmaker. I have shot, produced, edited and published these videos myself with the music and all. I've put in several hours of work on these films. These videos feature the art of an ebru artist. We made a bunch of these one night but recently had a falling out. He re-uploaded these same videos from my channel onto his channel. You can clearly see my name on the copyright and at the end in the credits. Who has the rights to these films? I mean these are MY images and the movies are the fruit of MY labors with the editing and the music and all. What is the situation in a case like this? Here's a link to one of the videos in question, all videos are similar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36EYBCTK1_8
Jpbrunel ( talk) 23:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC) JP
Per a discussion at Talk:Planet of the Apes (novel)#EL I have a question regarding a link that was removed after nearly three years on the Planet of the Apes (novel) article. We only want to link to the site, not reuse the images on Wikipedia. This is how the EL appeared:
La Planète des singes at The Sacred Scrolls - History of the novel's international editions with book cover images.
We want to narrow the question here to whether or not WP:ELNEVER prohibits linking to this site in regards to the images. As pointed out on the Talk page, it's worth bearing in mind that image use on another site doesn't have to meet our FUR criteria (which is set above the legal criteria), just the legally understood definition. In this case, FU usually applies if the images being used are of sufficiently low resolution, do not hurt the copyright owners commercial prospects nor are used to generate an income. If you can clear using The Sacred Scrolls site as an EL concerning copyright issues, we'll take it from there. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 16:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to upload some television screenshots but am having trouble figuring out how to do so. I think these would be helpful in illustrating certain articles: [7], [8], [9], [10] [11]. Can comply with the copyright criteria? -- 1ST7 ( talk) 20:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Is the name "Voyeur" for a band name copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.208.36 ( talk) 17:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
What do I have to do to upload this image file to Wikipedia? I followed the steps however I was told not to upload it if I had no real Copyright claim to it. I can't see why MGM would object to it since they allow most all main stream film's images to be uploaded. I have the image on file in my pictures but this is where it came from: [12] Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by KentuckyBootleg ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
If anyone has words of advice or encouragement to this good faith new user, User talk:Prairie dog yeah#Photo who appears to have a bit of a copyvio issue on an image they have some kind of permission to use. Please help and comment on their user page. Thanks. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 19:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)