![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
File:Frederick_Barry_Opert.jpg I have been given a photo by a family member of the subject to be used in publications. How do I indicate this? Peter.R.Hill ( talk) 05:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
As of this writing, the article for the World Builder software has two non-free images (a software icon and what appears to be a box art image) in the main infobox. For the box art image, a question that comes to mind is whether the image was created by photographing or scanning an original physical World Builder software package. In that case, there is the question as to whether there is an additional copyright that would be held by the party who photographed or scanned the packaging, in addition to the copyright for the packaging cover itself, and whether that copyright would have to be considered for hosting the image on Wikipedia. (To be sure, that may not be an issue; it may be that the only copyright for the image would be that for the packaging cover itself. Looking at the image, the text "For the Macintosh" in the lower left appears to be slanted, as is some of the text line above; that may be a result of a physical package being photographed or scanned.) In the event that the box art image is legitimate for Wikipedia, it may be worth considering as to whether it is necessary for the article infobox to have more than one non-free image. -- Elegie ( talk) 07:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
JJMC89 (T•C) 7 September 2019 (UTC) inquired Where on Wikimedia Commons did you find the below files?
File:The Procession of Saint Gregory to the Castel Sant'Angelo (ca. 1470) Louvre.jpg File:The Annunciation with The Expulsion of Adam and Eva from Paradise (1440-45) Tempera & gold on wood (40 x 46 cm.) National Gallery of Art, Washington.jpg File:Scenes from the Life of Saint John the Baptist. (1454) National Gallery, London.jpg File:Sainte Claire Rescuing the Shipwrecked (ca. 1455) Gemäldegalerie Berlin.jpg File:Saint Jérôme appears at Saint Augustin (ca. 1465) Berlin Gemäldegalerie.jpg
When I uploaded the images identified as "download from wiki commons" I used the term somewhat liberally as a blanket statement.
I got most of the images on the Giovanni di Paolo page as follows - I did a Google search "Where to find copyright free images" and followed a link to "Find free-to-use images" https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/29508?hl=en I followed that link to "Advanced image search" https://www.google.com/advanced_image_search I did a search for "Find images with / all if these words" - "Giovanni di Paolo" - filtered by "usage rights" and "free to use or share" I picked out most of the images to create the Gallery on the Giovanni di Paolo page from these search results and downloaded them to my computer and did some minor formatting to them for consistency in sizes and captions.
In the course of looking for images I found many of the museums that hold these works post images from their collections on their respective websites explicitly identified as "public domain" and free to download. Form the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York -
"Materials Identified as Open Access. By waiving any rights to Materials identified as Open Access, the Museum makes those Materials available for any purpose, including commercial and noncommercial use, free of charge and without requiring permission from the Museum. Open Access works are made available under a Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license."
Other museums with CC0 download images of their collections include (but not limited to): National Gallery of Art, Washington; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; National Gallery, London; Museum of Fine Arts, Houston.
I believe all of these images, over 500 years old, are in the public domain. If you believe they violate copyrights feel free to remove them. I posted them with the intention of disseminating information, education, and celebrating the works of the these artist. Although not my intention, I imagine having these paintings freely available on Wikipedia would only add to some level of prestige, value, and tourist interest for the museums that own them. Neither I, nor Wikipedia profit form posting these images. Thanks, --WiLaFa 18:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilafa ( talk • contribs)
Although I did not get this image directly from wiki commons, I have found it just now on the Louvre's website offering it and thousands of others for free downloads from their collection for non-commercial use https://art.rmngp.fr/en/library/artworks/di-paolo-giovanni_la-procession-de-saint-gregoire-au-chateau-saint-ange_huile-sur-bois — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilafa ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I have a question about why JJMC89 bot removed images from two pages, that were already in use on similar pages.
1. There is currently an image ( File:WANG_103.5ThePossum_logo.png) included in the infobox for radio station WANG in Biloxi, Mississippi, which relates to its programming slogan as "103.5 the Possum". Recently a second station, WTNI, began carrying the identical programming ("simulcasting"), so I added the same logo image to its infobox. However, JJMC89 bot removed it. (Both WANG and WTNI have the same owner).
2. KSD (FM)'s infobox includes an image, File:93.7 The Bull.jpg, referring to its station slogan as "93.7 The Bull". I added this image to the Call signs in the United States page, as an example of a station that promotes a slogan instead of its assigned call letters. but again this was removed by JJMC89. Thanks. Thomas H. White ( talk) 17:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The image File:Native_American_Map_of_Conemaugh_Valley_and_Surrounding_Hills.jpg appears to be a photograph of a page in a book. As such it would be a "slavish copy" under Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photographs. Regards, altjira ( talk) 21:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi
File has hard to read black text.
Zoom in to read text, find "www.euratlas.com" watermark in ALL the water areas.
Chaosdruid ( talk) 22:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
At the current time, the World Builder software article has two non-free images in the main infobox-an application icon and a box art image. Assuming that the box art image is legitimate on copyright grounds (see this archived discussion), there is the question as to whether the article infobox requires two non-free images. (From what I understand, if there are two non-free images together even though only one of the two would suffice, then only one of the two images should be kept.) -- Elegie ( talk) 06:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
File:KRZY JoseRadio logo.png and File:KDVA La Suavecita 106.9 & 107.1 logo.jpg are basically text logos with a bit of a 3D effect added. Is this really enough to push them above c:COM:TOO United States? Seems like a font which can be fairly easily be recreated these days.
File:KVVF 105.7 Latino Mix Bay Area.png is a little more complex, but it too seems like it might not be complex enough to need to be licensed as non-free. The bar graph imagery (I don't know the specific term) seems pretty common to stereos, etc. and also unlikely to be eligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
If this is really a photo of Helgi G. Thordersen, it would be more than 150 years old. Is the only reason it's being licensed as non-free is because the date of publication is being given as the date it appeared on this webpage? I can't say for sure, but it seems unlikely that was the first date of publication and that the website was even the original source of the photo. Can this be considered {{ PD-US-expired}}, {{ PD-old-100}} or c:Template:PD-Iceland per c:COM:ICELAND? File:Hallgrímur Sveinsson.jpg and File:Þórhallur Bjarnarson.jpg are not as old but they are both at least more than 100 years old, and are also licensed as non-free content. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is fine with keeping a photo of Harold Ware on his own entry, then why is some bot continually taking down his photo for a group that has his name, the “ Ware Group”?
I keep putting the photo back and asking for a clear a rationale, but the mindless bought just comes and ripped it out again and again without using the talk page as I keep requesting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboudaqn ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure I understand why we're using a 2012 image for the lead of this article, when the Times has been around plenty long enough to have editions that are in the public domain. Am I missing something here? GMG talk 19:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Appears to be a double post by same editor
|
---|
Hi, I'm completely new to Wikipedia, but I've just updated the entry on the ELFE cyclecar, a subject which I have been researching for a couple of years. Please feel free to correct any formatting errors I may have made, but at least the content is correct! There are some excellent images in the public domain to illustrate the update, at BNF Gallica. I can't work out whether I can link to these? I also have scans from defunct journals published in 1921 or 1922. Can I upload these, as I assume they are now out of copyright? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insultant ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC) |
Hi, I'm completely new to Wikipedia, but I've just updated the entry on the ELFE cyclecar, a subject which I have been researching for a couple of years. Please feel free to correct any formatting errors I may have made, but at least the content is correct!
There are some excellent images in the public domain to illustrate the update, at BNF Gallica. I can't work out whether I can link to these?
I also have scans from defunct journals published in 1921 or 1922. Can I upload these, as I assume they are now out of copyright?
Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insultant ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I've recently digitized about a thousand pictures taken by my (deceased) father, some of which might have encyclopedic value -- for example there's a picture of Kyrenia Gate in the late 1950s showing it has had some repair work done since then. I assume I can upload these with his name as author, but exactly how should I indicate permission? I now own the pictures but I am not the author. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 09:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm working on Noel Peri and found a picture of the subject in a journal article archived on JSTOR ( Link). This seems to be the only image I can find, and it is also used on his official bio page. The article was published in 1922, and the author of the article died in 1925 according to French Wikipedia and was published in a French journal. I think France follows the EU 'author's death + 75 years' standard.
However, there is no specific attribution of the photo that I've found and JSTOR lists the copyright owner for the whole article as a division of the French government (presumably on behalf of the University that published the journal) Copyright.com Copyright Status. The journal this appears in is out of print according to its archives.
I think this ought to be public domain, assuming copyright for the photo is the same as the article and the author died in 1925... however I don't know if there is a wrinkle in French copyright law, or if the fact that JSTOR is charging for reproductions means that it might need a fair use rationale. Any advice? -- Spasemunki ( talk)
Milan Piroćanac died in 1897 which means this photo is more than 100 years old. It seems unlikely to have been first published in 2004 per the source given for the file or that said sources is even the original source of the photo. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
So This picture File:Donquijoteshinjukucropped.jpg is currently specified as being without a licence because I wasn't sure how to specify that it is a cropped version of another picture uploaded onto Wikipedia under the CC BY-SA 3.0 licence. Help would be appreciated thanks Eddiehimself ( talk) 16:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, wondering if the File:Strike at Hormel Packing Plant, Austin, 1933.jpg. is appropriate for fair-use and free usage on Wikipedia. Thank you.
Hello-Mary-H (
talk) 17:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello-Mary-H ( talk) 18:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Page 17 (19 of the pdf) of the April 1976 issue of Cornell alumni news includes a photograph of Robert Kaske, taken by George Simian. Is this photograph under copyright? In particular, I'm wondering if copyright was properly established, and, if not, whether that would place the photograph in the public domain. Page 4 (6 of the pdf) contains a succinct "All rights reserved" notice; the all rights reserved article suggests that this might have some legal currency, but the copyright notice article suggests the opposite. Any help clarifying this, and establishing the copyright status of the photograph, would be much appreciated. Thanks, -- Usernameunique ( talk) 04:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I seem to be caught in an infinite loop. JJMC89 bot removed the 1934 image of the cover of the first cover of Walkabout magazine. I added it back after getting message from @ B-bot: "Thanks for uploading File:Walkabout Cover Nov 1934.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed...". The cover is now 84 years old. The magazine is defunct since the late 70s. I don't understand why the core image has been removed for a second time. It's exasperating, since the discussion in the whole section right next to the image makes it of crucial relevance to the article. How do I dodge around the bots' mechanical arms and advance this? Very grateful for your assistance! Jamesmcardle (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Probably not the right place for this question, but I've been looking for a better place and can't find one. Anyhow, this file: File:Europcar.jpg is weird. The file history isn't the same as the file itself. It claims that it has a copy on Commons as well but it's just a redirect (which I guess is the reason to the file history problem). Sorry if this is the wrong place but rather the wrong place than no place. Jonteemil ( talk) 03:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Howdy hello! As part of my job I have access to a rather large collection of herbarium samples as well as several thousand type samples of plants (the original sample from which an entire species was defined). I was thinking of photographing many of them and adding them to Wikipedia articles, but then I wondered if that is a copyright issue. Each sample includes a physical plant, and a label by a botanist giving details about the collection. Obviously I could just photograph the plant itself (as I can release my own photos CC-BY-SA), but can I include photos of the labels on these samples? Is the text of the description of locations/habitats/plants by botanists copyrighted? See for example [1]. I originally asked this at [2] and was suggested to come here. Any help would be appreciated! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 20:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Can I take snapshot from a public video (for example on youtube) and then upload it on Wikipedia as a main picture of a public person in the Infobox?-- 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:8D79:239A:124E:E0A7 ( talk) 04:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I uploaded a low-resolution of the cover of the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate here in Wikipedia and also on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons here Wikimedia for article I created Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate and potentially for a Wikinews item on that article.
I used the same rationale as that used for the use of a low resolution image of the cover of the similar Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C.
I changed the image size using CorelPaint Shop. Is this acceptable?
I posted a similar question on the Wikimedia Commons. I have not yet received a response, but after reading some of the other comments, I understand that this rationale can sometimes be used in Wikipedia but not in Wikimedia?
Thank you for any guidance you can give me. Oceanflynn ( talk) 22:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I had created a File:Dahli.svg myself based on File:Pakistan_-_Sindh_-_Tharparkar.svg. But while uploading through default media adding option in wikipedia page edit-mode I was getting duplicate name issue although the other file was with file extension .jpg. So I went for other way without going through default wizard where maybe I missed something and I was informed in my talk page that there is Image source problem. So I would like to know how can I resolve it?
The base file I used says in license that:
For the same I guess I have set same license while uploading the file. Is attribution missing or required for this work which is actually created by me? If yes kindly help me in what way I can add that? If not then what other issue is hindering or raising such issue?
Thanks and Regards, -- Vikram Nankani ( talk) 22:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to add a screeshot of a figure from an academic journal just so show the morphology of the fly P. xanthostoma. I found it on the article "SEXUAL SELECTION, GENETIC ARCHITECTURE, AND THE CONDITION DEPENDENCE IN THE SEXUALLY DIMORPHIC FLY PROCHYLIZA XANTHOSTOMA" I didn't know how to directly save the image so I took a screencap and would like to know what the licensing should say in order for it not to get deleted. I am very very new to Wikipedia (I have gotten strated within the last week) and would appreciate it if people gave me some guidance. I control-found "copyright" on the journal and did not see anything about the licensing. So I have no idea how to add this image.
Chickfilkay ( talk) 18:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
File:Frederick_Barry_Opert.jpg I have been given a photo by a family member of the subject to be used in publications. How do I indicate this? Peter.R.Hill ( talk) 05:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
As of this writing, the article for the World Builder software has two non-free images (a software icon and what appears to be a box art image) in the main infobox. For the box art image, a question that comes to mind is whether the image was created by photographing or scanning an original physical World Builder software package. In that case, there is the question as to whether there is an additional copyright that would be held by the party who photographed or scanned the packaging, in addition to the copyright for the packaging cover itself, and whether that copyright would have to be considered for hosting the image on Wikipedia. (To be sure, that may not be an issue; it may be that the only copyright for the image would be that for the packaging cover itself. Looking at the image, the text "For the Macintosh" in the lower left appears to be slanted, as is some of the text line above; that may be a result of a physical package being photographed or scanned.) In the event that the box art image is legitimate for Wikipedia, it may be worth considering as to whether it is necessary for the article infobox to have more than one non-free image. -- Elegie ( talk) 07:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
JJMC89 (T•C) 7 September 2019 (UTC) inquired Where on Wikimedia Commons did you find the below files?
File:The Procession of Saint Gregory to the Castel Sant'Angelo (ca. 1470) Louvre.jpg File:The Annunciation with The Expulsion of Adam and Eva from Paradise (1440-45) Tempera & gold on wood (40 x 46 cm.) National Gallery of Art, Washington.jpg File:Scenes from the Life of Saint John the Baptist. (1454) National Gallery, London.jpg File:Sainte Claire Rescuing the Shipwrecked (ca. 1455) Gemäldegalerie Berlin.jpg File:Saint Jérôme appears at Saint Augustin (ca. 1465) Berlin Gemäldegalerie.jpg
When I uploaded the images identified as "download from wiki commons" I used the term somewhat liberally as a blanket statement.
I got most of the images on the Giovanni di Paolo page as follows - I did a Google search "Where to find copyright free images" and followed a link to "Find free-to-use images" https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/29508?hl=en I followed that link to "Advanced image search" https://www.google.com/advanced_image_search I did a search for "Find images with / all if these words" - "Giovanni di Paolo" - filtered by "usage rights" and "free to use or share" I picked out most of the images to create the Gallery on the Giovanni di Paolo page from these search results and downloaded them to my computer and did some minor formatting to them for consistency in sizes and captions.
In the course of looking for images I found many of the museums that hold these works post images from their collections on their respective websites explicitly identified as "public domain" and free to download. Form the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York -
"Materials Identified as Open Access. By waiving any rights to Materials identified as Open Access, the Museum makes those Materials available for any purpose, including commercial and noncommercial use, free of charge and without requiring permission from the Museum. Open Access works are made available under a Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license."
Other museums with CC0 download images of their collections include (but not limited to): National Gallery of Art, Washington; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; National Gallery, London; Museum of Fine Arts, Houston.
I believe all of these images, over 500 years old, are in the public domain. If you believe they violate copyrights feel free to remove them. I posted them with the intention of disseminating information, education, and celebrating the works of the these artist. Although not my intention, I imagine having these paintings freely available on Wikipedia would only add to some level of prestige, value, and tourist interest for the museums that own them. Neither I, nor Wikipedia profit form posting these images. Thanks, --WiLaFa 18:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilafa ( talk • contribs)
Although I did not get this image directly from wiki commons, I have found it just now on the Louvre's website offering it and thousands of others for free downloads from their collection for non-commercial use https://art.rmngp.fr/en/library/artworks/di-paolo-giovanni_la-procession-de-saint-gregoire-au-chateau-saint-ange_huile-sur-bois — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilafa ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I have a question about why JJMC89 bot removed images from two pages, that were already in use on similar pages.
1. There is currently an image ( File:WANG_103.5ThePossum_logo.png) included in the infobox for radio station WANG in Biloxi, Mississippi, which relates to its programming slogan as "103.5 the Possum". Recently a second station, WTNI, began carrying the identical programming ("simulcasting"), so I added the same logo image to its infobox. However, JJMC89 bot removed it. (Both WANG and WTNI have the same owner).
2. KSD (FM)'s infobox includes an image, File:93.7 The Bull.jpg, referring to its station slogan as "93.7 The Bull". I added this image to the Call signs in the United States page, as an example of a station that promotes a slogan instead of its assigned call letters. but again this was removed by JJMC89. Thanks. Thomas H. White ( talk) 17:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The image File:Native_American_Map_of_Conemaugh_Valley_and_Surrounding_Hills.jpg appears to be a photograph of a page in a book. As such it would be a "slavish copy" under Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Photographs. Regards, altjira ( talk) 21:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi
File has hard to read black text.
Zoom in to read text, find "www.euratlas.com" watermark in ALL the water areas.
Chaosdruid ( talk) 22:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
At the current time, the World Builder software article has two non-free images in the main infobox-an application icon and a box art image. Assuming that the box art image is legitimate on copyright grounds (see this archived discussion), there is the question as to whether the article infobox requires two non-free images. (From what I understand, if there are two non-free images together even though only one of the two would suffice, then only one of the two images should be kept.) -- Elegie ( talk) 06:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
File:KRZY JoseRadio logo.png and File:KDVA La Suavecita 106.9 & 107.1 logo.jpg are basically text logos with a bit of a 3D effect added. Is this really enough to push them above c:COM:TOO United States? Seems like a font which can be fairly easily be recreated these days.
File:KVVF 105.7 Latino Mix Bay Area.png is a little more complex, but it too seems like it might not be complex enough to need to be licensed as non-free. The bar graph imagery (I don't know the specific term) seems pretty common to stereos, etc. and also unlikely to be eligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
If this is really a photo of Helgi G. Thordersen, it would be more than 150 years old. Is the only reason it's being licensed as non-free is because the date of publication is being given as the date it appeared on this webpage? I can't say for sure, but it seems unlikely that was the first date of publication and that the website was even the original source of the photo. Can this be considered {{ PD-US-expired}}, {{ PD-old-100}} or c:Template:PD-Iceland per c:COM:ICELAND? File:Hallgrímur Sveinsson.jpg and File:Þórhallur Bjarnarson.jpg are not as old but they are both at least more than 100 years old, and are also licensed as non-free content. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is fine with keeping a photo of Harold Ware on his own entry, then why is some bot continually taking down his photo for a group that has his name, the “ Ware Group”?
I keep putting the photo back and asking for a clear a rationale, but the mindless bought just comes and ripped it out again and again without using the talk page as I keep requesting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboudaqn ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure I understand why we're using a 2012 image for the lead of this article, when the Times has been around plenty long enough to have editions that are in the public domain. Am I missing something here? GMG talk 19:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Appears to be a double post by same editor
|
---|
Hi, I'm completely new to Wikipedia, but I've just updated the entry on the ELFE cyclecar, a subject which I have been researching for a couple of years. Please feel free to correct any formatting errors I may have made, but at least the content is correct! There are some excellent images in the public domain to illustrate the update, at BNF Gallica. I can't work out whether I can link to these? I also have scans from defunct journals published in 1921 or 1922. Can I upload these, as I assume they are now out of copyright? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insultant ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC) |
Hi, I'm completely new to Wikipedia, but I've just updated the entry on the ELFE cyclecar, a subject which I have been researching for a couple of years. Please feel free to correct any formatting errors I may have made, but at least the content is correct!
There are some excellent images in the public domain to illustrate the update, at BNF Gallica. I can't work out whether I can link to these?
I also have scans from defunct journals published in 1921 or 1922. Can I upload these, as I assume they are now out of copyright?
Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insultant ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I've recently digitized about a thousand pictures taken by my (deceased) father, some of which might have encyclopedic value -- for example there's a picture of Kyrenia Gate in the late 1950s showing it has had some repair work done since then. I assume I can upload these with his name as author, but exactly how should I indicate permission? I now own the pictures but I am not the author. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 09:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm working on Noel Peri and found a picture of the subject in a journal article archived on JSTOR ( Link). This seems to be the only image I can find, and it is also used on his official bio page. The article was published in 1922, and the author of the article died in 1925 according to French Wikipedia and was published in a French journal. I think France follows the EU 'author's death + 75 years' standard.
However, there is no specific attribution of the photo that I've found and JSTOR lists the copyright owner for the whole article as a division of the French government (presumably on behalf of the University that published the journal) Copyright.com Copyright Status. The journal this appears in is out of print according to its archives.
I think this ought to be public domain, assuming copyright for the photo is the same as the article and the author died in 1925... however I don't know if there is a wrinkle in French copyright law, or if the fact that JSTOR is charging for reproductions means that it might need a fair use rationale. Any advice? -- Spasemunki ( talk)
Milan Piroćanac died in 1897 which means this photo is more than 100 years old. It seems unlikely to have been first published in 2004 per the source given for the file or that said sources is even the original source of the photo. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
So This picture File:Donquijoteshinjukucropped.jpg is currently specified as being without a licence because I wasn't sure how to specify that it is a cropped version of another picture uploaded onto Wikipedia under the CC BY-SA 3.0 licence. Help would be appreciated thanks Eddiehimself ( talk) 16:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, wondering if the File:Strike at Hormel Packing Plant, Austin, 1933.jpg. is appropriate for fair-use and free usage on Wikipedia. Thank you.
Hello-Mary-H (
talk) 17:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello-Mary-H ( talk) 18:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Page 17 (19 of the pdf) of the April 1976 issue of Cornell alumni news includes a photograph of Robert Kaske, taken by George Simian. Is this photograph under copyright? In particular, I'm wondering if copyright was properly established, and, if not, whether that would place the photograph in the public domain. Page 4 (6 of the pdf) contains a succinct "All rights reserved" notice; the all rights reserved article suggests that this might have some legal currency, but the copyright notice article suggests the opposite. Any help clarifying this, and establishing the copyright status of the photograph, would be much appreciated. Thanks, -- Usernameunique ( talk) 04:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I seem to be caught in an infinite loop. JJMC89 bot removed the 1934 image of the cover of the first cover of Walkabout magazine. I added it back after getting message from @ B-bot: "Thanks for uploading File:Walkabout Cover Nov 1934.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed...". The cover is now 84 years old. The magazine is defunct since the late 70s. I don't understand why the core image has been removed for a second time. It's exasperating, since the discussion in the whole section right next to the image makes it of crucial relevance to the article. How do I dodge around the bots' mechanical arms and advance this? Very grateful for your assistance! Jamesmcardle (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Probably not the right place for this question, but I've been looking for a better place and can't find one. Anyhow, this file: File:Europcar.jpg is weird. The file history isn't the same as the file itself. It claims that it has a copy on Commons as well but it's just a redirect (which I guess is the reason to the file history problem). Sorry if this is the wrong place but rather the wrong place than no place. Jonteemil ( talk) 03:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Howdy hello! As part of my job I have access to a rather large collection of herbarium samples as well as several thousand type samples of plants (the original sample from which an entire species was defined). I was thinking of photographing many of them and adding them to Wikipedia articles, but then I wondered if that is a copyright issue. Each sample includes a physical plant, and a label by a botanist giving details about the collection. Obviously I could just photograph the plant itself (as I can release my own photos CC-BY-SA), but can I include photos of the labels on these samples? Is the text of the description of locations/habitats/plants by botanists copyrighted? See for example [1]. I originally asked this at [2] and was suggested to come here. Any help would be appreciated! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 20:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Can I take snapshot from a public video (for example on youtube) and then upload it on Wikipedia as a main picture of a public person in the Infobox?-- 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:8D79:239A:124E:E0A7 ( talk) 04:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I uploaded a low-resolution of the cover of the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate here in Wikipedia and also on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons here Wikimedia for article I created Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate and potentially for a Wikinews item on that article.
I used the same rationale as that used for the use of a low resolution image of the cover of the similar Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C.
I changed the image size using CorelPaint Shop. Is this acceptable?
I posted a similar question on the Wikimedia Commons. I have not yet received a response, but after reading some of the other comments, I understand that this rationale can sometimes be used in Wikipedia but not in Wikimedia?
Thank you for any guidance you can give me. Oceanflynn ( talk) 22:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I had created a File:Dahli.svg myself based on File:Pakistan_-_Sindh_-_Tharparkar.svg. But while uploading through default media adding option in wikipedia page edit-mode I was getting duplicate name issue although the other file was with file extension .jpg. So I went for other way without going through default wizard where maybe I missed something and I was informed in my talk page that there is Image source problem. So I would like to know how can I resolve it?
The base file I used says in license that:
For the same I guess I have set same license while uploading the file. Is attribution missing or required for this work which is actually created by me? If yes kindly help me in what way I can add that? If not then what other issue is hindering or raising such issue?
Thanks and Regards, -- Vikram Nankani ( talk) 22:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to add a screeshot of a figure from an academic journal just so show the morphology of the fly P. xanthostoma. I found it on the article "SEXUAL SELECTION, GENETIC ARCHITECTURE, AND THE CONDITION DEPENDENCE IN THE SEXUALLY DIMORPHIC FLY PROCHYLIZA XANTHOSTOMA" I didn't know how to directly save the image so I took a screencap and would like to know what the licensing should say in order for it not to get deleted. I am very very new to Wikipedia (I have gotten strated within the last week) and would appreciate it if people gave me some guidance. I control-found "copyright" on the journal and did not see anything about the licensing. So I have no idea how to add this image.
Chickfilkay ( talk) 18:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)