This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I recently added File:Barker-Bill's-Trick-Shooting-game-screenshot.png as a screenshot to the article about Barker Bill's Trick Shooting. The file page for the screenshot includes a non-free use rationale and a {{ Non-free game screenshot}} license tag. From adding this screenshot, there are the following questions:
This file and File:Johnny Hawke 1949.jpg were flagged by a bot as a WP:NFCC#9 violations, but they seems to have conflicting copyright licenses. Each file is licensed as {{ PD-Australia}} tag which has a "Not PD in the US disclaimer added to it". So, if they need to be treated as WP:NFC, then they are going to need separate specific non-free use rationales for all their uses per WP:NFCC#10c, right? Many of the team photo's uses appear to be "decorative", so I'm not sure that valid rationales can be written for them. Perhaps Sticks66, the file's uploader, can clarify its licensing. If the files are really PD, then perhaps they should be moved to Commons if allowed. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Two of basically the same logo. The svg one is licensed as {{ Non-free logo}} and the jpg is licensed as {{ PD-logo}}. For reference, the jpg was just uploaded in good faith because the uploader seems to want to use in a userbox (see User talk:NetWitz#Non-free image use). It does not seem likely that both licenses can be corect. Is it possible that the file can be treated as PD? If so, the svg could be converted to "PD-logo" and moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Can
File:Florida license plate.gif and
File:Florida license plate In God We Trust.jpg converted to {{
PD-FLGov}}? They are sourced to
www
Hi, I'm trying to write an article in my sandbox and I want to use the portrait photo from this website. is it ok to use it? Ramesty ( talk) 17:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I would like an opinion about File:4Hunnid Records logo.png before moving it to Commons. Is the logo original enough for copyright? -- George Ho ( talk) 13:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, i work with someone that wants me to help them change their photo on Wikipedia, they have photos of them on their twitter account which is verified, can i upload the photos of them to Wikipedia and change their profile picture, or is there something else i have to do, or they have to do to change it?
thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordenlewis ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
sorry - i'm an absolute wikipedia newbie. i assume diagrams from research papers are unusable in wikipedia, right? eg http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v18/n4/fig_tab/nsmb.2018_F1.html
if i want create an original work based of copyrighted work, how original does it have to be? could you please direct me to some samples?
thanks, SilverJaw ( talk) 20:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
i see. i hadn't made the connection between wikipedia and commons. thanks for the pointer and i'll try contacting the author. SilverJaw ( talk) 07:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently the US 9th circuit court has now ruled that the famous macaque selfie is the property of the photographer. PETA and the photographer came to an amicable settlement. I'm curious about why it is still up, in so many versions, on Wikimedia servers. I did tag some of the image talk pages with the recent news that of the ruling. Thoughts? See this LA Times article, another in the New York Times, and this article from the BBC. 198.58.170.90 ( talk) 03:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
These discussions are not going anywhere. the recent settlement has not changed the status of this image, This image is hosted on Commons, so any deletion discussion or copyright status discussion should happen over there. AlasdairEdits ( talk) 11:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)}}
Hi, I'm currently working on a sandbox for new football stadium that is currently under construction. I have access to various design documents (as they are public record because it's a government project, although not public domain as they were created by a private company who did the design) that includes 2 low resolution (I've since cropped them to 450 wide x 250 high) 3d renders as a kind of "artists impression". 1 of the interior & 1 of the exterior. My question is about if it is appropriate/possible to use these two images for the article, and if so what criteria best apply. The stadium has only just begun construction so there is no ability to take photos of a non-existent interior or exterior. Thank you. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 10:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation. You have a good point regarding notability. I'll look into that, while working on the sandbox article. I will also keep in mind to not upload anything until the article itself is ready. Thank you. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 08:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Can this be relicensed as {{ PD-logo}}? The company is based in the US and this appears to be text with a 3d-effect. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Request for the deletion of two images as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punith331994 ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I found this image as a profile picture on Twitter: File:Elsamni.jpg. I do not know how to tag it so the copyright is ok with wikipedia. Source: http://www.twitter.com/elsamni — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulRahman14 ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 September 2017
Dear Wikipedia,
Why do the pictures continue to be deleted with no comments?
First some were deleted and some were saved, then the others were deleted with no further explanation.
I would like to challenge this opinion as I have received permission from the newspaper they were copied from to publish them on Wikipedia.
Others pictures were family photos taken by my Uncle (now deceased). What are the next steps.
Sincerely,
William Byrd
Bestword57 ( talk) 20:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
When I click your link, I get the message: This page does not currently exist. You can search for this page title in other pages or create this page.
Thanks.
-William
Bestword57 ( talk) 21:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
There's not much information given on China's TOO in c:COM:TOO#China (PRC), so I'm not sure whether this would be considered protected in the country of origin, but it seems like it might be OK as {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} and kept locally on Wikipedia. If this does need to be non-free then it is missing a non-free use rationale and was only previously being used in User:TonyHuang/sandbox. This means it will either eventually be deleted per WP:F5 or WP:F6, Any feedback would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 10:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why this needs to be licensed as non-free content when it seems simple enough for {{ PD-simple}} or even {{ PD-logo}}. Even if it's copyrightable in Finland (the home of HIM (Finnish band)), it still seems OK to be {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Any reason why this needs to be non-free? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The licensing for this image indicates that it has been effectively placed into the public domain by the copyright holder. Indeed, the image has also been tagged (possibly by a bot) as being an image that would be OK to copy to Wikimedia Commons. At the same time, it is not clear that the SoundEdit software icon was in fact placed into the public domain or that the uploader is the copyright holder. Right now, the icon is used in the main infobox in the SoundEdit article. (I recently added an infobox to the article though the icon was present in the article before then.) Would it be possible to treat the image as non-free content (such as with the {{ Non-free use rationale icon}} rationale and the {{ non-free icon}} license tag)? -- Elegie ( talk) 12:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Does this logo for California State University need to be treated as non-free content or can it be converted to {{ PD-CAGov}}? It will have to be removed from Template:Portal/doc/all per WP:NFCC#9 if it needs to be non-free. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This file is licensed as {{ non-free biog-pic}} and I've tagged it with {{ rfu}} because of File:Portrait of Julia Abigail Fletcher Carney.jpg, but given the fact that Carney dies in 1908, it seems likely that the file might be PD. Unfortunately, the source provide for the image seems to be a possible Wikipedia mirror of some kind and I can really tell anything about the image other than it appears to be quite old. If anyone can figure out a way to sort this out, please remove the rfu tag and change the licensing accordingly. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
If the primary BMW roundel/logo ( File:BMW.svg) is considered to be PD, then it seems that the BMW Sauber F1 logo should also be PD since the the only possible copyrightable element is the roundel itself. Is there a reason the team logo needs to be non-free content, while the files in c:Category:BMW roundel logos are not? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
File:DrThaddeusLottSr.jpg This is the image I intended to add to the Thaddeus S. Lott, Sr. page. How can I correctly tag this image under fair use considering that he passed away in 2015? Thanks. a_cloud 06:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACloud ( talk • contribs)
I don't think this is the uploader's own work; It looks more like non-free content. However, I am unable to find any information about the file which might make it possible to convert to {{ Non-free logo}}. I find the file used on a come of webpages, but nothing official looking and they probably took the image from Wikipedia. Any suggestions on what to do here? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 11:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Is the logo used on the article Tencent Games, c:File:Tencent_Games_Logo_Resized.png licensed appropriately for use on enwiki? The uploader claims it as "Own work" which seems unlikely. Can this be used under fair use instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 September 2017
Japan considers toys to be utilitarian objects, but the US considers them to be protected by copyright (see c:COM:TOYS for reference). File:Mego Acroyear Red Number 1.jpg, File:Microman Clear M101 George Number 5.jpg, and File:Magne Power Microman 001 Arthur Number 1.jpg are all photos of toys from someone's personal collection. The photos themselves can be released as PD by the photographer, but the toys are obviously the focus of the photos so de minimis cannot be argued. Would these toys be considered copyrightable thus making the photo a derivative work requiring permission from the toy manufacturer for any image of it to be released under a free license? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.The reference given there is to a decision that says
Since the toys were authored by a Japanese national and first "published" (i.e. sold) in Japan, they enjoyed copyright protection under United States law from the moment they were created. StarryGrandma ( talk) 22:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I want to upload a picture (really well taken)-for an article-that I found on Instagram, which was uploaded there by someone I can contact via e-mail. Is there a format to send this person for the permission? How should I do? Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 06:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This is licensed as {{ self}}, but it looks non-free. The file's description states "This was used by the Barton College in the 1990s, however was privately designed and never copyrighted. This was printed on the back of the 1994 copy of the Bartonian in the form of a white outline which was digitised and coloured in 2017." which may be true, but I'm not sure that does not necessarily mean "not copyrighted" or "self"; moreover, if the original white outline is really protected by copyright, then the colorized version itself may be considered a WP:Derivative work but the original copyright cannot be ignored. I am aware of {{ PD-US-no notice}}, {{ PD-US-not renewed}} and {{ PD-US-1989}}, but none of those apply to works published in 1994. If the logo was privately designed, then the person who designed the logo should still hold the copyright on it, right? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Would someone please help me with the appropriate US tagging for this drawing? It was drawn between 1882 and 1883, by (most likely) someone who died in 1891, and was first published in 1977, in the United Kingdom. In the UK it became PD in 1961, due to life + 70. My sense is that the correct US tag is {{PD-US-URAA}}, as it was first published outside of the US, never registered in the US, and PD by 1996 in the UK. However, as the US rule on unpublished works is life + 70, I wonder if a different tag is warranted; if the drawing was also PD in the US by 1961, it would not have been subject to copyright protections when first published (in the UK) in 1977. The Guilden Morden boar article is currently a featured article contender, so trying to make sure I nail down the appropriate tag. Thanks in advance for any help! -- Usernameunique ( talk) 03:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
If the 1977 publication of this drawing was an authorized publication, then we have to consider US copyright formalities. The URAA restores copyright protection to works first published outside the US that lost their US copyright due to failure to comply with US formalities. I think you are correct that as this work was PD in the UK in 1996, it would almost certainly not have been eligible for copyright restoration by the URAA, so I think we can ignore the URAA. Thus, if the drawing was published in 1977 with authorization, all we need to know is if the work retained its US copyright protection because the work did comply with US copyright formalities. For example, did the 1977 publication of Medieval Archaeology contain a valid copyright notice? If not, and the publication of the drawing was authorized, then you can use the {{PD-old-auto-1996|deathyear=1891}} tag on Commons. — RP88 ( talk) 04:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I took a photograph of a computer board built by MasPar. I am the copyright holder of this photograph, but I wish to upload this photograph to Wikimedia Commons so that it may be added to the Wiki page in question.
In short, I am the copyright holder of a file and I wish to grand Wikimedia Commons the exclusive use of this file. How should I do it?
-- 24.201.107.30 ( talk) 22:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Almost certain that this does not need to be licensed as non-free given that the Canadian flag is the only element which seem could possibly be copyrighted, but File:Flag of Canada (Pantone).svg is {{ PD-Canada}}. I'm only not sure which license should be used for this logo. {{ PD-Canada}}, {{ PD-logo}}, a combination of both? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Was wondering if File:Distingbanner4.svg needs to be non-free or can it be converted to {{ PD-CAGov}}. If it needs to be non-free, then it's been tagged with {{ di-missing some article links}} since February 2011 and still is missing a non-free use rationale for Marc and Eva Stern Math and Science School. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Seems simple enough for {{ PD-logo}} (basically the same as File:Democrazia Cristiana.svg and File:DC Party Logo (1943-1968).svg) or at least {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} (if not below Italy's TOO). If it needs to be non-free, it's missing a non-free use rationale for List of Secretaries of Christian Democracy (Italy) and I'm almost positive that one cannot be written for that type of usage. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
This one also seems {{ PD-logo}} or {{ PD-simple}} unless it's possible that bottom of the "C" might be considered copyrightable. I don't really what c:COM:TOO#Colombia means by "apparent to the eye" and how orif it applies to this. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please point me to policy/guideline/consensus on fair use as it relates to film posters? According to {{ Non-free movie poster}}, non-free posters should be used "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself" and not "solely for illustration". But this is clearly not how we operate: I've just played a quick game of "Think of a film and put it in the search box" and every single example I can think of has a non-free poster illustrating its infobox. GoldenRing ( talk) 08:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I would like to update the Henry Mills (Once Upon a Time) Article Infobox photo but I don't know what to use as a copyright when uploading the promotional image I want to use of Andrew J West portraying adult Henry since Andrew a main actor since Adult Henry is the current central Character for this season. Here is a link to the image I would like to use
http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/40700000/Once-Upon-a-Time-Henry-Mills-Season-7-Official-Picture-once-upon-a-time-40727757-375-500.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rylerkit ( talk • contribs)
Thanks
Hello,
I noticed that the photo Alexander_N_Chumakov_at_Songshan_Forum.jpg ( File:Alexander_N_Chumakov_at_Songshan_Forum.jpg) is missing at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=File:Alexander_N_Chumakov_at_Songshan_Forum.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 (section is called 'Creating File:Alexander N Chumakov at Songshan Forum.jpg'). I believe the permission was already sent to Wikipedia (in reference to /info/en/?search=User_talk:Dserge01#File_permission_problem_with_File:Alexander_N_Chumakov_at_Songshan_Forum.jpg). What can I do now to bring the photograph back?
Regards,
Dmitry Sergeev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dserge01 ( talk • contribs)
File:Win8 TM compilation.png is so small that it's completely unreadable. Can someone restore the large version of this file? 93.139.81.157 ( talk) 19:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I recently added File:Barker-Bill's-Trick-Shooting-game-screenshot.png as a screenshot to the article about Barker Bill's Trick Shooting. The file page for the screenshot includes a non-free use rationale and a {{ Non-free game screenshot}} license tag. From adding this screenshot, there are the following questions:
This file and File:Johnny Hawke 1949.jpg were flagged by a bot as a WP:NFCC#9 violations, but they seems to have conflicting copyright licenses. Each file is licensed as {{ PD-Australia}} tag which has a "Not PD in the US disclaimer added to it". So, if they need to be treated as WP:NFC, then they are going to need separate specific non-free use rationales for all their uses per WP:NFCC#10c, right? Many of the team photo's uses appear to be "decorative", so I'm not sure that valid rationales can be written for them. Perhaps Sticks66, the file's uploader, can clarify its licensing. If the files are really PD, then perhaps they should be moved to Commons if allowed. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Two of basically the same logo. The svg one is licensed as {{ Non-free logo}} and the jpg is licensed as {{ PD-logo}}. For reference, the jpg was just uploaded in good faith because the uploader seems to want to use in a userbox (see User talk:NetWitz#Non-free image use). It does not seem likely that both licenses can be corect. Is it possible that the file can be treated as PD? If so, the svg could be converted to "PD-logo" and moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Can
File:Florida license plate.gif and
File:Florida license plate In God We Trust.jpg converted to {{
PD-FLGov}}? They are sourced to
www
Hi, I'm trying to write an article in my sandbox and I want to use the portrait photo from this website. is it ok to use it? Ramesty ( talk) 17:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I would like an opinion about File:4Hunnid Records logo.png before moving it to Commons. Is the logo original enough for copyright? -- George Ho ( talk) 13:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, i work with someone that wants me to help them change their photo on Wikipedia, they have photos of them on their twitter account which is verified, can i upload the photos of them to Wikipedia and change their profile picture, or is there something else i have to do, or they have to do to change it?
thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordenlewis ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
sorry - i'm an absolute wikipedia newbie. i assume diagrams from research papers are unusable in wikipedia, right? eg http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v18/n4/fig_tab/nsmb.2018_F1.html
if i want create an original work based of copyrighted work, how original does it have to be? could you please direct me to some samples?
thanks, SilverJaw ( talk) 20:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
i see. i hadn't made the connection between wikipedia and commons. thanks for the pointer and i'll try contacting the author. SilverJaw ( talk) 07:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently the US 9th circuit court has now ruled that the famous macaque selfie is the property of the photographer. PETA and the photographer came to an amicable settlement. I'm curious about why it is still up, in so many versions, on Wikimedia servers. I did tag some of the image talk pages with the recent news that of the ruling. Thoughts? See this LA Times article, another in the New York Times, and this article from the BBC. 198.58.170.90 ( talk) 03:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
These discussions are not going anywhere. the recent settlement has not changed the status of this image, This image is hosted on Commons, so any deletion discussion or copyright status discussion should happen over there. AlasdairEdits ( talk) 11:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)}}
Hi, I'm currently working on a sandbox for new football stadium that is currently under construction. I have access to various design documents (as they are public record because it's a government project, although not public domain as they were created by a private company who did the design) that includes 2 low resolution (I've since cropped them to 450 wide x 250 high) 3d renders as a kind of "artists impression". 1 of the interior & 1 of the exterior. My question is about if it is appropriate/possible to use these two images for the article, and if so what criteria best apply. The stadium has only just begun construction so there is no ability to take photos of a non-existent interior or exterior. Thank you. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 10:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation. You have a good point regarding notability. I'll look into that, while working on the sandbox article. I will also keep in mind to not upload anything until the article itself is ready. Thank you. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 08:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Can this be relicensed as {{ PD-logo}}? The company is based in the US and this appears to be text with a 3d-effect. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Request for the deletion of two images as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punith331994 ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I found this image as a profile picture on Twitter: File:Elsamni.jpg. I do not know how to tag it so the copyright is ok with wikipedia. Source: http://www.twitter.com/elsamni — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulRahman14 ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 September 2017
Dear Wikipedia,
Why do the pictures continue to be deleted with no comments?
First some were deleted and some were saved, then the others were deleted with no further explanation.
I would like to challenge this opinion as I have received permission from the newspaper they were copied from to publish them on Wikipedia.
Others pictures were family photos taken by my Uncle (now deceased). What are the next steps.
Sincerely,
William Byrd
Bestword57 ( talk) 20:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
When I click your link, I get the message: This page does not currently exist. You can search for this page title in other pages or create this page.
Thanks.
-William
Bestword57 ( talk) 21:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
There's not much information given on China's TOO in c:COM:TOO#China (PRC), so I'm not sure whether this would be considered protected in the country of origin, but it seems like it might be OK as {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} and kept locally on Wikipedia. If this does need to be non-free then it is missing a non-free use rationale and was only previously being used in User:TonyHuang/sandbox. This means it will either eventually be deleted per WP:F5 or WP:F6, Any feedback would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 10:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why this needs to be licensed as non-free content when it seems simple enough for {{ PD-simple}} or even {{ PD-logo}}. Even if it's copyrightable in Finland (the home of HIM (Finnish band)), it still seems OK to be {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Any reason why this needs to be non-free? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The licensing for this image indicates that it has been effectively placed into the public domain by the copyright holder. Indeed, the image has also been tagged (possibly by a bot) as being an image that would be OK to copy to Wikimedia Commons. At the same time, it is not clear that the SoundEdit software icon was in fact placed into the public domain or that the uploader is the copyright holder. Right now, the icon is used in the main infobox in the SoundEdit article. (I recently added an infobox to the article though the icon was present in the article before then.) Would it be possible to treat the image as non-free content (such as with the {{ Non-free use rationale icon}} rationale and the {{ non-free icon}} license tag)? -- Elegie ( talk) 12:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Does this logo for California State University need to be treated as non-free content or can it be converted to {{ PD-CAGov}}? It will have to be removed from Template:Portal/doc/all per WP:NFCC#9 if it needs to be non-free. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This file is licensed as {{ non-free biog-pic}} and I've tagged it with {{ rfu}} because of File:Portrait of Julia Abigail Fletcher Carney.jpg, but given the fact that Carney dies in 1908, it seems likely that the file might be PD. Unfortunately, the source provide for the image seems to be a possible Wikipedia mirror of some kind and I can really tell anything about the image other than it appears to be quite old. If anyone can figure out a way to sort this out, please remove the rfu tag and change the licensing accordingly. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
If the primary BMW roundel/logo ( File:BMW.svg) is considered to be PD, then it seems that the BMW Sauber F1 logo should also be PD since the the only possible copyrightable element is the roundel itself. Is there a reason the team logo needs to be non-free content, while the files in c:Category:BMW roundel logos are not? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
File:DrThaddeusLottSr.jpg This is the image I intended to add to the Thaddeus S. Lott, Sr. page. How can I correctly tag this image under fair use considering that he passed away in 2015? Thanks. a_cloud 06:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACloud ( talk • contribs)
I don't think this is the uploader's own work; It looks more like non-free content. However, I am unable to find any information about the file which might make it possible to convert to {{ Non-free logo}}. I find the file used on a come of webpages, but nothing official looking and they probably took the image from Wikipedia. Any suggestions on what to do here? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 11:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Is the logo used on the article Tencent Games, c:File:Tencent_Games_Logo_Resized.png licensed appropriately for use on enwiki? The uploader claims it as "Own work" which seems unlikely. Can this be used under fair use instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 September 2017
Japan considers toys to be utilitarian objects, but the US considers them to be protected by copyright (see c:COM:TOYS for reference). File:Mego Acroyear Red Number 1.jpg, File:Microman Clear M101 George Number 5.jpg, and File:Magne Power Microman 001 Arthur Number 1.jpg are all photos of toys from someone's personal collection. The photos themselves can be released as PD by the photographer, but the toys are obviously the focus of the photos so de minimis cannot be argued. Would these toys be considered copyrightable thus making the photo a derivative work requiring permission from the toy manufacturer for any image of it to be released under a free license? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.The reference given there is to a decision that says
Since the toys were authored by a Japanese national and first "published" (i.e. sold) in Japan, they enjoyed copyright protection under United States law from the moment they were created. StarryGrandma ( talk) 22:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I want to upload a picture (really well taken)-for an article-that I found on Instagram, which was uploaded there by someone I can contact via e-mail. Is there a format to send this person for the permission? How should I do? Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 06:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This is licensed as {{ self}}, but it looks non-free. The file's description states "This was used by the Barton College in the 1990s, however was privately designed and never copyrighted. This was printed on the back of the 1994 copy of the Bartonian in the form of a white outline which was digitised and coloured in 2017." which may be true, but I'm not sure that does not necessarily mean "not copyrighted" or "self"; moreover, if the original white outline is really protected by copyright, then the colorized version itself may be considered a WP:Derivative work but the original copyright cannot be ignored. I am aware of {{ PD-US-no notice}}, {{ PD-US-not renewed}} and {{ PD-US-1989}}, but none of those apply to works published in 1994. If the logo was privately designed, then the person who designed the logo should still hold the copyright on it, right? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Would someone please help me with the appropriate US tagging for this drawing? It was drawn between 1882 and 1883, by (most likely) someone who died in 1891, and was first published in 1977, in the United Kingdom. In the UK it became PD in 1961, due to life + 70. My sense is that the correct US tag is {{PD-US-URAA}}, as it was first published outside of the US, never registered in the US, and PD by 1996 in the UK. However, as the US rule on unpublished works is life + 70, I wonder if a different tag is warranted; if the drawing was also PD in the US by 1961, it would not have been subject to copyright protections when first published (in the UK) in 1977. The Guilden Morden boar article is currently a featured article contender, so trying to make sure I nail down the appropriate tag. Thanks in advance for any help! -- Usernameunique ( talk) 03:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
If the 1977 publication of this drawing was an authorized publication, then we have to consider US copyright formalities. The URAA restores copyright protection to works first published outside the US that lost their US copyright due to failure to comply with US formalities. I think you are correct that as this work was PD in the UK in 1996, it would almost certainly not have been eligible for copyright restoration by the URAA, so I think we can ignore the URAA. Thus, if the drawing was published in 1977 with authorization, all we need to know is if the work retained its US copyright protection because the work did comply with US copyright formalities. For example, did the 1977 publication of Medieval Archaeology contain a valid copyright notice? If not, and the publication of the drawing was authorized, then you can use the {{PD-old-auto-1996|deathyear=1891}} tag on Commons. — RP88 ( talk) 04:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I took a photograph of a computer board built by MasPar. I am the copyright holder of this photograph, but I wish to upload this photograph to Wikimedia Commons so that it may be added to the Wiki page in question.
In short, I am the copyright holder of a file and I wish to grand Wikimedia Commons the exclusive use of this file. How should I do it?
-- 24.201.107.30 ( talk) 22:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Almost certain that this does not need to be licensed as non-free given that the Canadian flag is the only element which seem could possibly be copyrighted, but File:Flag of Canada (Pantone).svg is {{ PD-Canada}}. I'm only not sure which license should be used for this logo. {{ PD-Canada}}, {{ PD-logo}}, a combination of both? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Was wondering if File:Distingbanner4.svg needs to be non-free or can it be converted to {{ PD-CAGov}}. If it needs to be non-free, then it's been tagged with {{ di-missing some article links}} since February 2011 and still is missing a non-free use rationale for Marc and Eva Stern Math and Science School. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Seems simple enough for {{ PD-logo}} (basically the same as File:Democrazia Cristiana.svg and File:DC Party Logo (1943-1968).svg) or at least {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} (if not below Italy's TOO). If it needs to be non-free, it's missing a non-free use rationale for List of Secretaries of Christian Democracy (Italy) and I'm almost positive that one cannot be written for that type of usage. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
This one also seems {{ PD-logo}} or {{ PD-simple}} unless it's possible that bottom of the "C" might be considered copyrightable. I don't really what c:COM:TOO#Colombia means by "apparent to the eye" and how orif it applies to this. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please point me to policy/guideline/consensus on fair use as it relates to film posters? According to {{ Non-free movie poster}}, non-free posters should be used "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself" and not "solely for illustration". But this is clearly not how we operate: I've just played a quick game of "Think of a film and put it in the search box" and every single example I can think of has a non-free poster illustrating its infobox. GoldenRing ( talk) 08:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I would like to update the Henry Mills (Once Upon a Time) Article Infobox photo but I don't know what to use as a copyright when uploading the promotional image I want to use of Andrew J West portraying adult Henry since Andrew a main actor since Adult Henry is the current central Character for this season. Here is a link to the image I would like to use
http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/40700000/Once-Upon-a-Time-Henry-Mills-Season-7-Official-Picture-once-upon-a-time-40727757-375-500.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rylerkit ( talk • contribs)
Thanks
Hello,
I noticed that the photo Alexander_N_Chumakov_at_Songshan_Forum.jpg ( File:Alexander_N_Chumakov_at_Songshan_Forum.jpg) is missing at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=File:Alexander_N_Chumakov_at_Songshan_Forum.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 (section is called 'Creating File:Alexander N Chumakov at Songshan Forum.jpg'). I believe the permission was already sent to Wikipedia (in reference to /info/en/?search=User_talk:Dserge01#File_permission_problem_with_File:Alexander_N_Chumakov_at_Songshan_Forum.jpg). What can I do now to bring the photograph back?
Regards,
Dmitry Sergeev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dserge01 ( talk • contribs)
File:Win8 TM compilation.png is so small that it's completely unreadable. Can someone restore the large version of this file? 93.139.81.157 ( talk) 19:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)