This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I have a new logo to add to the wikipedia page as a result of a brand change of the organization Nagarro. While I have uploaded the new logo here [ [1]], could I receive some assistance at what more needs to be done here and how can I get the logo replaced? I am an employee of the organization and have disclosed my COI. Buzztrack ( talk) 18:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I tried uploading this image from National polytechnic museum in Sofia, which has given me permission via email to publish it here, but it got deleted as possible copyright violation, how can I publish it without doing anything wrong? MotoJawaCZ ( talk) 19:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Is the SPDX logo ( https://spdx.dev/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2020/04/SPDX_Logo-01.svg) able to be added for the SPDX page? It's a single SVG with the logo and typeface, but I have absolutely 0 understanding of copyright, so I'll need help on how to do this right. WhoAteMyButter ( đŹâ âď¸) 18:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I seem to have liked Wikipedia more and more, and as such, want the other users to know me better. I intend to post a picture of me in my page, yet I don't know the guidelines to do so. My questions (listed in order so as to avoid unnecessary, frivolous discussions)
That is all, thank you for reading my tedious query, and have a good day! :> â Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice bear johny ( talk ⢠contribs) 17:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I was trying to add the file "Bristol VA and Bristol TN flag.gif" (flag of the twin cities of Bristol, Virginia and Bristol, Tennessee) to Bristol, Virginia, but the JJMC89 bot flagged it as being on a page with "no valid non-free use rationale". I doubt that's true, since the same image is used on Bristol, Tennessee page without any problems. Please fix this problem or take the bot offline for repairs.
-- 73.123.30.85 ( talk) 02:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
. . . from 1964. It was taken of Rotea Gilford after he was promoted to the SFPD Inspector's Bureau. It was taken by a reporter at the News Call Bulletin newspaper in San Francisco, a now defunct newspaper. When I found it in their archives, there was a note that said "some pictures may have copyrights." - but it in no way said that this picture has a copyright. Please advise if I can use it or if I need to provide more information. Many thanks! â Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilitzianf ( talk ⢠contribs) 21:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
but it in no way said that this picture has a copyright, the standard seems to be a bit stronger than than that per c:Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files in that it tends to be assumed that all photos start out as being copyrighted until it can be clearly demonstrated that they're not; in other words, we don't try to prove the opposite, i.e. assume that a photo isn't copyrighted and then prove that it is. There are various possibilities where a copyrighted photo might become public domain (some are listed in c:Commons:Hirtle) and the more information you can provide about the provenance of the photo, the better the chance there's going to be of somebody helping you. Photos taken in 1964 are generally not considered "too old" to no longer be eligible for copyright protection, and photos taken by employees of newspapers (even defunct ones) tend things protected by copyright. Since the News-Call Bulletin now appears to be owned by the San Francisco Examiner, my guess is that the new owners own the rights to the NCB old archives as well. California as a state, however, is a bit unusual in that works created by state, country and municipal employees as part of their official duties are considered to be public domain, but that doesn't seem to be applicable here. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am trying to write a Wikipedia article for pioneer trapper and outdoorsman John Bunyan Ray. Being a fairly common name, with famous names such as John Bunyan and John Ray plaguing my search results, I found it slightly difficult to find a portrait of the man. Using Google Image Search, I found a thumbnail (with the person in question in it) linking to a Pinterest album. Upon clicking on the album, I found out that it contained hundreds of photos (it was somebody's collection of massive yoga celebration Wanderlust 2013), and I could not find the image in question. Still searching for it, I decided to post File:John Ray portrait.jpg to Wiki commons and include it in my draft article. Of course, there is no copyright certification to this image. This is my first time writing a Wikipedia article, and I am stuck between a rock and a hard place; what can I do? I doubt, even if I found the image in the massive Pinterest album, that the person pinning it created the file. Is there any way that this will get verified and be able to be used? It's the only image I can find online; I have a book with images of it in him. If this can't get verified, another question is could I scan/copy it from the book (I have the author's email address) and call it my own since I would be the first one to post it online? I just can't figure out even where to put the copyright tags or anything. Thanks a million! â Preceding unsigned comment added by ChickenChocken ( talk ⢠contribs) 15:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
In the article List of battle rifles, the image of the Madsen LAR was removed for copyright violation, but this is the same one used in the article of the weapon itself, ( /info/en/?search=File:Madsen_light_automatic_rifle_LAR_M-62,_caliber_7.62_51_NATO,_fixed_butt.jpg) and in my copyright ignorance, it feels like a mistake - I don't see how one is appropriate, but not the other. Loafiewa ( talk) 11:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Dr. Catherine Nakalembe, a winner of the Africa Food Prize (AFP) 2020 on BBC World- Focus on Africa.
I'd like to use this video as an EL in
Catherine Nakalembe, but my guess is that I'm wrong I can't, because it's not posted by the BBC. So, can someone tell me I'm wrong, please?
GrĂĽbergs GrĂĽa SĂĽng (
talk) 12:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Folks!! I uploaded this image. Its Public Domain Mark 1.0 according to [2] but I couldn't find a licence for it. It seems to be wholly public domain. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 21:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
If the work was published before 30 August 1989 then copyright expires 70 years after that first publication.- which applies here unless the photograph can have its author ascertained. I believe this makes it commons-eligible per being PD in the UK, and it's PD in the US because it's UK copyright has expired - but don't quote me on that. I mainly figured I'd provide links to the original articles in the BMJ so you could attribute the image to those (and those seem to maybe be higher quality too). -bÉ:ĘłkÉnhÉŞmez ( User/ say hi!) 00:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article for Liz Whitney Tippett. When you do a Google search for the exact Wikipedia name or her best known name Liz Whitney, the Wikipedia article comes up on the Google page with a photo of her next to it that is not in the Wikipedia article. Can we use that same photo? Stretchrunner ( talk) 13:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
My thanks to you all. Greatly appreciate something clearly enunciated that helps those of us who have to "find their way" an such things at Wikipedia. I will copy this and put it in my Wiki "How/What to do" file. Again, thank you. Stretchrunner ( talk) 22:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have cut an image from Sky-map.org (Wikisky) to use in a new article. I read: "SKY-MAP.ORG allows to use their processed images and cut out tools for non-commercial use with additional credits to WikiSky.org". I'm ready to upload the file but my question is, does this fit in the "free use" category, or non-free, "fair use"? Thanks! Assambrew ( talk) 07:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 8 § File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
For the list of Pomona College presidents, I'm thinking about adding photos, similar to the ones at the Washington College list or the U Michigan list. Some of the presidents, e.g. E. Wilson Lyon, have only a fair use portrait available, though. Could I write a non-free use rationale for including these images in the table? {{u| Sdkb}}⯠talk 23:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I would like to get permission to use one of the photos on the Soesterberg section. I am writing an article about Soesterberg for one of the Coast Guard Auxiliary newsletters and would like to use the photo title pilotless Soviet MiG-23 over Belgium. The pilots that shot the plane down were from Soesterberg. They went up to intercept the plane after it crossed the east/west border. When they approached the plane they saw that there was not pilot and the plane itself was in a flamed-out status. They requested permission to shoot the plane to keep it from coming down in a residential area. I can't find the photographer to ask permission. The letters under the photo are theaviationist.com.
Sandy DeLaughter
Hi, I don't understand how this poster (and many many other movie posters) can be used as "fair use". The description tells that it can only be used "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration". However in the article An American Werewolf in London I don't see "critical commentary" that refers to the poster, just illustration in the infobox. (please, ping me on reply) -- Kanzat ( talk) 12:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm looking for guidance on the copyright status of a photo available here. The copyright is given on the very photo as "Maull & Fox : 187A Piccadilly, London (1879-85)", for which a few details are given here. I found just a handful of photos from this source on Commons (e.g. File:Markham_Le_Fer_Taylor.jpg), though this may simply indicate that the collection includes mostly images of non-notable individuals. Would you say the photo is PD? For what it's worth, the individual depicted on it was born in 1863 and died in 1932, and the photo was taken sometime in the 1890s. Thank you for your feedback. Toccata quarta ( talk) 08:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)â
Roberge says that the Institution of Civil Engineers (London) owns the original photo, and held it in a binder. That's not enough information to say the Institute published it, because merely exhibiting an artwork isn't publication. Similarly, it's not clear how the Institute came to own the photo, whether it owned the copyright too, and thus whether it was permitted to publish it in the first place (or indeed whether it ever did so). But let's set that aside for the moment, because the Mercury sounds like it was an authorized publication in 1905, so we can disregard the possibility that the photo was unpublished. Regarding Maull and Fox, we can surmise that their partnership either granted each person a part interest in the copyright of joint works (e.g. the company is a simple partnership), or granted a corporate entity copyright ownership (e.g. they owned a limited liability company jointly). It may also be impossible to know for sure if Maull or Fox (or unknown assistants) personally contributed to this particular image.
So to return to the options I mentioned above, it sounds like we have established 1887 creation and no later than 1905 publication: this means {{ PD-US-expired}} is valid ( work published outside the U.S. by foreign national before 1925) and U.S. public domain status is enough to host on English Wikipedia. (Technically, there are some special cases, but it is very unlikely they apply. And if it was somehow published in the U.S. first before 1925, it would still be in the public domain.) Additionally, if you would like to also show U.K. public domain, I'd leave it up to your judgment whether to attribute to Maull, Fox, Maull & Fox (the company), other or a combination. {{ PD-UK-unknown}} is called for if after "reasonable enquiry" the author is unknown, and I think we have no principled basis on which to say we know who authored the photo; merely to say that it is most likely the joint work of Maull and Fox and subject to U.K. copyright expiration 70 years after the death of the last author (1914). (If we instead wanted to assert the truth of the latter, then it would be {{ PD-old-100}}.) Hopefully this logic seems reasonable. TheFeds 11:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
One more question. I found out that a photograph of Sorabji's mother (taken sometime in the 1880s) was taken by a photographer who died in 1916. The photograph was first published in 2006. Could its inclusion on Commons be justified with {{ PD-US-unpublished}} and {{ PD-old-100}}, or would we have to settle for putting it on en.wikipedia and rely (solely) on {{PD-US-unpublished}}? Toccata quarta ( talk) 15:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
One additional tag that may apply is {{ commons:Template:PD-EU-unpublished}}, based on Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Publication_right and Publication right. However, I'm not especially familiar with this right and whether (per the statement in the article) "permission of the owner of the corresponding physical medium" has been satisfied, or if that is even a correct statement of the law. Since we are only obliged to indicate copyright status, I would view correct publication right status tagging to be a valuable courtesy but not a requirement. TheFeds 10:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The article SkiFree has an image of a software icon, File:SkiFree icon.gif, in the article's main infobox. The question I have is whether the usage of the icon in the infobox is appropriate. The page https://ski.ihoc.net/ shows what appears to be the same icon in its "Sights and Sounds" section and states that the icon was made by "some graphic artist at Microsoft." The WP article indicates that the SkiFree game was released for multiple platforms. I do not know if different icons were used for all of the different releases. From what I remember, the iOS release of the SkiFree game from GearSprout has an icon that is similar to the icon in the article infobox. In the "Ports and releases" section of the WP article, there is a statement about SkiFree and proprietary rights and about GearSprout being able to do a version of the game. -- Elegie ( talk) 07:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I was directed there through a suggested venue at my query and concern at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Teahouse#Wikimedia
Cullen328 said that both wikipedia and wikimedia commons do not tolerate copyright violation. Wikimedia commons' one golden rule for photos featuring bldgs and sculptures is that they should be under the freedom of panorama if the country has such rule on their copyright law. Most philippine bldgs and sculptures are not allowed there because theres no freedom of pano in the copyright law of the country.
My question is does wikipedia has similar rule for photos pf philippine bldgs and sculptures or not? Or does it allow photos pf philippine bldgs and sculptures? I can see various photos of philippine bldgs and sculptures with no logo and link to wikimedia commons having "do not move to wikimedia commons" notices. For resolution they are in full resolutions.
Cullen328 added that "A low resolution photo of a copyrighted sculpture may be permissible if it illustrates sourced critical commentary about that sculpture in an encyclopedia article." How about high resolution photos that i can see in some uploads of what i assume to be filipino wikipedians?
One perfect example is /info/en/?search=EDSA_Shrine
Mrcl lxmna ( talk) 07:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
After a thorough reading of "Wikipedia:Non-free content", i realize some phil sculpture photos taken by filipino wikipedians fail the policy of non-free content, as you shared @ Elegie:. Some are in their very large resolutions, other simply unused. Still the use of others in philippine related articles might fail your policy on non-free content. I might list them here if i immediately see them, as i dont know the wikipedia method of reporting violating images Mrcl lxmna ( talk) 09:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
IMAGES OF PHIL SCULPTURES:
- File:Bonifacio_Shrine_January_2020.JPG - orig reso and unused.
- File:Mall_of_asia_01.jpg - unused and orig reso. More to list.....
From one of my critics at wikimedia commons, who is in himself violating your non free content policy by continuing to upload high reso photos of creative artworks like sculptures, monuments, memorials, and the like with much of them unused, and if used not in very low reso.
- File:EDSA_Shrine_(Ortigas,_Quezon_City;_02-10-2019).jpg
- File:Rizal_Park_-_KM_Zero_marker_(Roxas_Boulevard,_Manila;_01-01-2020).jpg
- File:Rizal_Park_-_Valencia_Circle_(Manila;_12-30-2019)_wiki.jpg
- File:Jones_Bridge_-_new_light_posts_(Manila;_11-24-2019).jpg
- File:Bonifacio_Shrine_and_City_Hall_clock_tower_(Manila;_11-23-2019).jpg
- File:Bonifacio_Shrine_(Padre_Burgos,_Manila;_11-23-2019).jpg
- File:EDSA_Shrine_(EDSA-Ortigas,_Quezon_City;_09-10-2019).jpg
- File:King_Philip_Statue,_Intramuros_(Manila;_11-10-2019).jpg
- File:Rizal_Monument,_Calamba_(close-up)_(Chipeco_Ave.,_Calamba,_Laguna)(2018-08-21).jpg
- File:Rizal_Monument,_Calamba_(close-up_side)_(Chipeco_Ave.,_Calamba,_Laguna)(2018-08-21).jpg
- File:Urdaneta_Monument_(City_Hall,_McArthur_Highway,_Urdaneta,_Pangasinan)(2018-11-27).jpg
- File:People_Power_Monument_(EDSA-White_Plains,_Quezon_City)(2015-01-03).jpg
- File:People_Power_Monument_(EDSA-White_Plains,_Quezon_City)(2010-08-30)_2.jpg
- File:SM_Mall_of_Asia_Globe_(EDSA_Ext.,_Pasay)(2018-02-20).jpg
- File:SM_Mall_of_Asia_-_Globe_(EDSA_Ext.,_Pasay)(2017-12-31).JPG
- File:University_of_the_Philippines_(UP_Campus)_-_Oblation_(Diliman,_Quezon_City;_2015-01-22).jpg
- File:University_of_the_Philippines_(UPLB)_-_Oblation_(Los_BaĂąos,_Laguna;_2017-02-16).jpg
- File:Lingayen_Beach_-_I_Love_Pangasinan_sign_(Lingayen,_Pangasinan)(2018-02-25).jpg
- File:Ph-mm-quezon_city-edsa-ortigas_ave.-ortigas_center-edsa_shrine_(2015)_01.JPG
- File:Carabao_Sculpture_(Rizal_Park,_Roxas_Blvd.,_Ermita,_Manila;_2015-06-12).jpg
- File:People_Power_Monument_(EDSA-White_Plains,_Quezon_City;_2014-12-03).jpg â Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcl lxmna ( talk ⢠contribs) 10:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- /info/en/?search=File:St._Andrew_Makati_Interior.jpg cross and interior artworls â Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcl lxmna ( talk ⢠contribs) 11:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
[[:File:Bonifacio Shrine (Padre Burgos, Manila; 11-23-2019).jpg]]
) using the
WP:COLON trick instead. In addition, when you start a discussion about a file at FFD, you should also make sure to notify the person who uploaded the file so that they are aware of your concerns. Finally, you might want to slow down a bit and not start any new FFD discussions for the moment because there might be other ways to resolve this that don't require a formal FFD discussion. If the process seems tedious to you, then there's a chance that you might make mistakes which is something that is only going to create more cleanup for others to do and may even lead to other types of problems. Thank you for making your
good-faith concerns known here. Lots of editors (including some Wikipedia administrators) who are more familiar than you with things like
WP:FOP and
WP:NFCC tend to monitor this page, and they probably will help figure out what needs to be done. It might take a little time, but eventually it should all be sorted out. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 21:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Thank you @ Marchjuly and Masem: for your reminders. I fix tgose file names. Mrcl lxmna ( talk) 14:40, 28 September 2020 (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 have a new logo to add to the wikipedia page as a result of a brand change of the organization Nagarro. While I have uploaded the new logo here [ [1]], could I receive some assistance at what more needs to be done here and how can I get the logo replaced? I am an employee of the organization and have disclosed my COI. Buzztrack ( talk) 18:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I tried uploading this image from National polytechnic museum in Sofia, which has given me permission via email to publish it here, but it got deleted as possible copyright violation, how can I publish it without doing anything wrong? MotoJawaCZ ( talk) 19:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Is the SPDX logo ( https://spdx.dev/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2020/04/SPDX_Logo-01.svg) able to be added for the SPDX page? It's a single SVG with the logo and typeface, but I have absolutely 0 understanding of copyright, so I'll need help on how to do this right. WhoAteMyButter ( đŹâ âď¸) 18:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I seem to have liked Wikipedia more and more, and as such, want the other users to know me better. I intend to post a picture of me in my page, yet I don't know the guidelines to do so. My questions (listed in order so as to avoid unnecessary, frivolous discussions)
That is all, thank you for reading my tedious query, and have a good day! :> â Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice bear johny ( talk ⢠contribs) 17:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I was trying to add the file "Bristol VA and Bristol TN flag.gif" (flag of the twin cities of Bristol, Virginia and Bristol, Tennessee) to Bristol, Virginia, but the JJMC89 bot flagged it as being on a page with "no valid non-free use rationale". I doubt that's true, since the same image is used on Bristol, Tennessee page without any problems. Please fix this problem or take the bot offline for repairs.
-- 73.123.30.85 ( talk) 02:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
. . . from 1964. It was taken of Rotea Gilford after he was promoted to the SFPD Inspector's Bureau. It was taken by a reporter at the News Call Bulletin newspaper in San Francisco, a now defunct newspaper. When I found it in their archives, there was a note that said "some pictures may have copyrights." - but it in no way said that this picture has a copyright. Please advise if I can use it or if I need to provide more information. Many thanks! â Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilitzianf ( talk ⢠contribs) 21:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
but it in no way said that this picture has a copyright, the standard seems to be a bit stronger than than that per c:Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files in that it tends to be assumed that all photos start out as being copyrighted until it can be clearly demonstrated that they're not; in other words, we don't try to prove the opposite, i.e. assume that a photo isn't copyrighted and then prove that it is. There are various possibilities where a copyrighted photo might become public domain (some are listed in c:Commons:Hirtle) and the more information you can provide about the provenance of the photo, the better the chance there's going to be of somebody helping you. Photos taken in 1964 are generally not considered "too old" to no longer be eligible for copyright protection, and photos taken by employees of newspapers (even defunct ones) tend things protected by copyright. Since the News-Call Bulletin now appears to be owned by the San Francisco Examiner, my guess is that the new owners own the rights to the NCB old archives as well. California as a state, however, is a bit unusual in that works created by state, country and municipal employees as part of their official duties are considered to be public domain, but that doesn't seem to be applicable here. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am trying to write a Wikipedia article for pioneer trapper and outdoorsman John Bunyan Ray. Being a fairly common name, with famous names such as John Bunyan and John Ray plaguing my search results, I found it slightly difficult to find a portrait of the man. Using Google Image Search, I found a thumbnail (with the person in question in it) linking to a Pinterest album. Upon clicking on the album, I found out that it contained hundreds of photos (it was somebody's collection of massive yoga celebration Wanderlust 2013), and I could not find the image in question. Still searching for it, I decided to post File:John Ray portrait.jpg to Wiki commons and include it in my draft article. Of course, there is no copyright certification to this image. This is my first time writing a Wikipedia article, and I am stuck between a rock and a hard place; what can I do? I doubt, even if I found the image in the massive Pinterest album, that the person pinning it created the file. Is there any way that this will get verified and be able to be used? It's the only image I can find online; I have a book with images of it in him. If this can't get verified, another question is could I scan/copy it from the book (I have the author's email address) and call it my own since I would be the first one to post it online? I just can't figure out even where to put the copyright tags or anything. Thanks a million! â Preceding unsigned comment added by ChickenChocken ( talk ⢠contribs) 15:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
In the article List of battle rifles, the image of the Madsen LAR was removed for copyright violation, but this is the same one used in the article of the weapon itself, ( /info/en/?search=File:Madsen_light_automatic_rifle_LAR_M-62,_caliber_7.62_51_NATO,_fixed_butt.jpg) and in my copyright ignorance, it feels like a mistake - I don't see how one is appropriate, but not the other. Loafiewa ( talk) 11:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Dr. Catherine Nakalembe, a winner of the Africa Food Prize (AFP) 2020 on BBC World- Focus on Africa.
I'd like to use this video as an EL in
Catherine Nakalembe, but my guess is that I'm wrong I can't, because it's not posted by the BBC. So, can someone tell me I'm wrong, please?
GrĂĽbergs GrĂĽa SĂĽng (
talk) 12:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Folks!! I uploaded this image. Its Public Domain Mark 1.0 according to [2] but I couldn't find a licence for it. It seems to be wholly public domain. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 21:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
If the work was published before 30 August 1989 then copyright expires 70 years after that first publication.- which applies here unless the photograph can have its author ascertained. I believe this makes it commons-eligible per being PD in the UK, and it's PD in the US because it's UK copyright has expired - but don't quote me on that. I mainly figured I'd provide links to the original articles in the BMJ so you could attribute the image to those (and those seem to maybe be higher quality too). -bÉ:ĘłkÉnhÉŞmez ( User/ say hi!) 00:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article for Liz Whitney Tippett. When you do a Google search for the exact Wikipedia name or her best known name Liz Whitney, the Wikipedia article comes up on the Google page with a photo of her next to it that is not in the Wikipedia article. Can we use that same photo? Stretchrunner ( talk) 13:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
My thanks to you all. Greatly appreciate something clearly enunciated that helps those of us who have to "find their way" an such things at Wikipedia. I will copy this and put it in my Wiki "How/What to do" file. Again, thank you. Stretchrunner ( talk) 22:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have cut an image from Sky-map.org (Wikisky) to use in a new article. I read: "SKY-MAP.ORG allows to use their processed images and cut out tools for non-commercial use with additional credits to WikiSky.org". I'm ready to upload the file but my question is, does this fit in the "free use" category, or non-free, "fair use"? Thanks! Assambrew ( talk) 07:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 8 § File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
For the list of Pomona College presidents, I'm thinking about adding photos, similar to the ones at the Washington College list or the U Michigan list. Some of the presidents, e.g. E. Wilson Lyon, have only a fair use portrait available, though. Could I write a non-free use rationale for including these images in the table? {{u| Sdkb}}⯠talk 23:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I would like to get permission to use one of the photos on the Soesterberg section. I am writing an article about Soesterberg for one of the Coast Guard Auxiliary newsletters and would like to use the photo title pilotless Soviet MiG-23 over Belgium. The pilots that shot the plane down were from Soesterberg. They went up to intercept the plane after it crossed the east/west border. When they approached the plane they saw that there was not pilot and the plane itself was in a flamed-out status. They requested permission to shoot the plane to keep it from coming down in a residential area. I can't find the photographer to ask permission. The letters under the photo are theaviationist.com.
Sandy DeLaughter
Hi, I don't understand how this poster (and many many other movie posters) can be used as "fair use". The description tells that it can only be used "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration". However in the article An American Werewolf in London I don't see "critical commentary" that refers to the poster, just illustration in the infobox. (please, ping me on reply) -- Kanzat ( talk) 12:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm looking for guidance on the copyright status of a photo available here. The copyright is given on the very photo as "Maull & Fox : 187A Piccadilly, London (1879-85)", for which a few details are given here. I found just a handful of photos from this source on Commons (e.g. File:Markham_Le_Fer_Taylor.jpg), though this may simply indicate that the collection includes mostly images of non-notable individuals. Would you say the photo is PD? For what it's worth, the individual depicted on it was born in 1863 and died in 1932, and the photo was taken sometime in the 1890s. Thank you for your feedback. Toccata quarta ( talk) 08:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)â
Roberge says that the Institution of Civil Engineers (London) owns the original photo, and held it in a binder. That's not enough information to say the Institute published it, because merely exhibiting an artwork isn't publication. Similarly, it's not clear how the Institute came to own the photo, whether it owned the copyright too, and thus whether it was permitted to publish it in the first place (or indeed whether it ever did so). But let's set that aside for the moment, because the Mercury sounds like it was an authorized publication in 1905, so we can disregard the possibility that the photo was unpublished. Regarding Maull and Fox, we can surmise that their partnership either granted each person a part interest in the copyright of joint works (e.g. the company is a simple partnership), or granted a corporate entity copyright ownership (e.g. they owned a limited liability company jointly). It may also be impossible to know for sure if Maull or Fox (or unknown assistants) personally contributed to this particular image.
So to return to the options I mentioned above, it sounds like we have established 1887 creation and no later than 1905 publication: this means {{ PD-US-expired}} is valid ( work published outside the U.S. by foreign national before 1925) and U.S. public domain status is enough to host on English Wikipedia. (Technically, there are some special cases, but it is very unlikely they apply. And if it was somehow published in the U.S. first before 1925, it would still be in the public domain.) Additionally, if you would like to also show U.K. public domain, I'd leave it up to your judgment whether to attribute to Maull, Fox, Maull & Fox (the company), other or a combination. {{ PD-UK-unknown}} is called for if after "reasonable enquiry" the author is unknown, and I think we have no principled basis on which to say we know who authored the photo; merely to say that it is most likely the joint work of Maull and Fox and subject to U.K. copyright expiration 70 years after the death of the last author (1914). (If we instead wanted to assert the truth of the latter, then it would be {{ PD-old-100}}.) Hopefully this logic seems reasonable. TheFeds 11:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
One more question. I found out that a photograph of Sorabji's mother (taken sometime in the 1880s) was taken by a photographer who died in 1916. The photograph was first published in 2006. Could its inclusion on Commons be justified with {{ PD-US-unpublished}} and {{ PD-old-100}}, or would we have to settle for putting it on en.wikipedia and rely (solely) on {{PD-US-unpublished}}? Toccata quarta ( talk) 15:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
One additional tag that may apply is {{ commons:Template:PD-EU-unpublished}}, based on Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Publication_right and Publication right. However, I'm not especially familiar with this right and whether (per the statement in the article) "permission of the owner of the corresponding physical medium" has been satisfied, or if that is even a correct statement of the law. Since we are only obliged to indicate copyright status, I would view correct publication right status tagging to be a valuable courtesy but not a requirement. TheFeds 10:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The article SkiFree has an image of a software icon, File:SkiFree icon.gif, in the article's main infobox. The question I have is whether the usage of the icon in the infobox is appropriate. The page https://ski.ihoc.net/ shows what appears to be the same icon in its "Sights and Sounds" section and states that the icon was made by "some graphic artist at Microsoft." The WP article indicates that the SkiFree game was released for multiple platforms. I do not know if different icons were used for all of the different releases. From what I remember, the iOS release of the SkiFree game from GearSprout has an icon that is similar to the icon in the article infobox. In the "Ports and releases" section of the WP article, there is a statement about SkiFree and proprietary rights and about GearSprout being able to do a version of the game. -- Elegie ( talk) 07:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I was directed there through a suggested venue at my query and concern at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Teahouse#Wikimedia
Cullen328 said that both wikipedia and wikimedia commons do not tolerate copyright violation. Wikimedia commons' one golden rule for photos featuring bldgs and sculptures is that they should be under the freedom of panorama if the country has such rule on their copyright law. Most philippine bldgs and sculptures are not allowed there because theres no freedom of pano in the copyright law of the country.
My question is does wikipedia has similar rule for photos pf philippine bldgs and sculptures or not? Or does it allow photos pf philippine bldgs and sculptures? I can see various photos of philippine bldgs and sculptures with no logo and link to wikimedia commons having "do not move to wikimedia commons" notices. For resolution they are in full resolutions.
Cullen328 added that "A low resolution photo of a copyrighted sculpture may be permissible if it illustrates sourced critical commentary about that sculpture in an encyclopedia article." How about high resolution photos that i can see in some uploads of what i assume to be filipino wikipedians?
One perfect example is /info/en/?search=EDSA_Shrine
Mrcl lxmna ( talk) 07:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
After a thorough reading of "Wikipedia:Non-free content", i realize some phil sculpture photos taken by filipino wikipedians fail the policy of non-free content, as you shared @ Elegie:. Some are in their very large resolutions, other simply unused. Still the use of others in philippine related articles might fail your policy on non-free content. I might list them here if i immediately see them, as i dont know the wikipedia method of reporting violating images Mrcl lxmna ( talk) 09:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
IMAGES OF PHIL SCULPTURES:
- File:Bonifacio_Shrine_January_2020.JPG - orig reso and unused.
- File:Mall_of_asia_01.jpg - unused and orig reso. More to list.....
From one of my critics at wikimedia commons, who is in himself violating your non free content policy by continuing to upload high reso photos of creative artworks like sculptures, monuments, memorials, and the like with much of them unused, and if used not in very low reso.
- File:EDSA_Shrine_(Ortigas,_Quezon_City;_02-10-2019).jpg
- File:Rizal_Park_-_KM_Zero_marker_(Roxas_Boulevard,_Manila;_01-01-2020).jpg
- File:Rizal_Park_-_Valencia_Circle_(Manila;_12-30-2019)_wiki.jpg
- File:Jones_Bridge_-_new_light_posts_(Manila;_11-24-2019).jpg
- File:Bonifacio_Shrine_and_City_Hall_clock_tower_(Manila;_11-23-2019).jpg
- File:Bonifacio_Shrine_(Padre_Burgos,_Manila;_11-23-2019).jpg
- File:EDSA_Shrine_(EDSA-Ortigas,_Quezon_City;_09-10-2019).jpg
- File:King_Philip_Statue,_Intramuros_(Manila;_11-10-2019).jpg
- File:Rizal_Monument,_Calamba_(close-up)_(Chipeco_Ave.,_Calamba,_Laguna)(2018-08-21).jpg
- File:Rizal_Monument,_Calamba_(close-up_side)_(Chipeco_Ave.,_Calamba,_Laguna)(2018-08-21).jpg
- File:Urdaneta_Monument_(City_Hall,_McArthur_Highway,_Urdaneta,_Pangasinan)(2018-11-27).jpg
- File:People_Power_Monument_(EDSA-White_Plains,_Quezon_City)(2015-01-03).jpg
- File:People_Power_Monument_(EDSA-White_Plains,_Quezon_City)(2010-08-30)_2.jpg
- File:SM_Mall_of_Asia_Globe_(EDSA_Ext.,_Pasay)(2018-02-20).jpg
- File:SM_Mall_of_Asia_-_Globe_(EDSA_Ext.,_Pasay)(2017-12-31).JPG
- File:University_of_the_Philippines_(UP_Campus)_-_Oblation_(Diliman,_Quezon_City;_2015-01-22).jpg
- File:University_of_the_Philippines_(UPLB)_-_Oblation_(Los_BaĂąos,_Laguna;_2017-02-16).jpg
- File:Lingayen_Beach_-_I_Love_Pangasinan_sign_(Lingayen,_Pangasinan)(2018-02-25).jpg
- File:Ph-mm-quezon_city-edsa-ortigas_ave.-ortigas_center-edsa_shrine_(2015)_01.JPG
- File:Carabao_Sculpture_(Rizal_Park,_Roxas_Blvd.,_Ermita,_Manila;_2015-06-12).jpg
- File:People_Power_Monument_(EDSA-White_Plains,_Quezon_City;_2014-12-03).jpg â Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcl lxmna ( talk ⢠contribs) 10:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- /info/en/?search=File:St._Andrew_Makati_Interior.jpg cross and interior artworls â Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcl lxmna ( talk ⢠contribs) 11:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
[[:File:Bonifacio Shrine (Padre Burgos, Manila; 11-23-2019).jpg]]
) using the
WP:COLON trick instead. In addition, when you start a discussion about a file at FFD, you should also make sure to notify the person who uploaded the file so that they are aware of your concerns. Finally, you might want to slow down a bit and not start any new FFD discussions for the moment because there might be other ways to resolve this that don't require a formal FFD discussion. If the process seems tedious to you, then there's a chance that you might make mistakes which is something that is only going to create more cleanup for others to do and may even lead to other types of problems. Thank you for making your
good-faith concerns known here. Lots of editors (including some Wikipedia administrators) who are more familiar than you with things like
WP:FOP and
WP:NFCC tend to monitor this page, and they probably will help figure out what needs to be done. It might take a little time, but eventually it should all be sorted out. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 21:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Thank you @ Marchjuly and Masem: for your reminders. I fix tgose file names. Mrcl lxmna ( talk) 14:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)