Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geni (talk | contribs) at 01:49, 10 August 2008 (→Old Ordnance Survey maps). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to the bottom
    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

    Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.

    How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
    1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
    2. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
      • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
      • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
      • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
    3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
    4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
    5. Hit Publish changes.
    6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
    How to ask a question
    1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
    2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
    3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
    4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
    Note for those replying to posted questions

    If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

    Click here to start a new discussion
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)


    Would any of these images be eligible for use here?

    The McClatchy News Service published close to 100 articles about Guantanamo and Bagram detention facilities in June. They also published over five dozen images.

    I expect those images will expire from the McClatchy site, at some point. I requested http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php to archive the images. And I have a page in my user space where I listed the archived images for later reference.

    Are any of these images public domain?

    I figure this image, marked "for official use" would be in the public domain, because it was made by a GI.

    Although this image is labeled a "pool" image it looks identical to, but of a higher resolution, an image that a US Gov site credits to a GI. If that is the case it too would be public domain?

    I assume "press pool" images are not public domain, but merely that (some?) press services have limited reproduction rights -- and no one else does -- correct?

    I asked about this question over on Commons:Village pump -- from my reading it seems that Afghanistan currently has no domestic copyright law, and is not a full signatory to the Berne Convention or any other international copyright agreement.

    Some people seem to interpret this situation as if images from Afghanistan are "up for grabs", and the first person to publish them in a country that does have copyright laws can claim all rights to the image, world-wide, even if they didn't take the image themselves, or negotiate the rights with the original photographer.

    This sounds like nonsense to me. But IANAL.

    In this particular case these images were taken by employees of the publisher. So the publisher would own all the rights anyhow...

    fair use?

    Some of the remaining images are clearly not eligible for "fair use", because those individuals have been interviewed before, and other non-free images of them are out there.

    Just to be clear, in the cases where a lonely McClatchy reporter put their life at risk to go interview a villager who was very difficult to find -- images captured there would not qualify for fair use, because some other brave reporter could put their life at risk, and do all the legwork to track the subject down for another picture. So most of the images of individuals would not qualify for fair use?

    These two images [1], [2], capture a specific event -- the release of a bunch of captives from Bagram. Would one of the individuals here have to be someone known to be important for these images to qualify for fair use?

    If any of these guys die...

    If any of these guys die, and no free images are known to exist, then the image would probably become "fair use" -- correct?

    So, if they don't qualify for fair use?

    So, if these images don't qualify for fair use am I supposed to not have pointers to them? If so I will blank this page.

    Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I'm not sure about the answers for all the images you asked about, but I will offer what help I can, and hopefully someone more knowledgeable will come along and be able to sort out the rest. The pool image [3], even if it's similar to an image taken by a GI, says on it that it belongs to Getty Images, a commercial image firm. That makes it non-free and out of the question for wikipedia use, especially with a free alternative avaliable.
    For the court martial document, I really don't know. The "For Official Use Only" at the bottom of the page makes me think it might not be, but it probably comes down to what the status of documents obtained by US Court Martials is. I'd say it also depends on how/where this image got out. If it's a leaked document, considering it's marked "for official use only", I'd guess it's not okay, but I honestly don't know and hope someone more knowledgeable than me can come along and answer.
    Depending on the text of the article, you might be able to justify one (but not both) of the images of the prisoners getting released since it would capture a historical event that would be impossible to replicate. However, it really would depend on the text of the article and whether or not the image would lead to a significant increase in reader understanding in a way that mere text could not.
    And it's fine to have links going to non-free images, you just can't post the images themselves. So no page blanking required. Sorry I can't answer all your questions, but I hope that gets you off to a start. Vickser (talk)
    Thanks for the reply.
    Yes, I will agree, if the pool image really was taken by a reporter, it is not PD. But I have come across about a dozen images which seem to have been demonstrably first published by the DoD, where they were attributed to a GI, only to have them later surface in a wire services library, where the wire service library is claiming they own the intellectual property right. I think some times this is due to plain out human error. But I am afraid that some photojournalists have less respect for intellectual property rights than we do, and will routinely claim ownership of images they are not entitled to.
    So, the public domain aspect of all works of US Federal employess is trumped by an "Official Use Only" stamp? But, if that were true, why wasn't Daniel Ellsberg, the guy who leaked The Pentagon Papers charged with copyright violation? The other interpretation is that the PD counts more, comes first, and once an image or document is leaked, authorities are limited to charging the leaker with violating the official secrets act, or reasonable equivalent? Geo Swan (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As said above, for the leaked court martial document, I'm really not sure. Hopefully someone who does know more than me can come along and clarify, but in the mean time I'm inclined towards better safe than sorry. It says it's made by George Chigi III who it identifies as a military polygraph examiner and is from a US court martial file. Do we know for sure that military polygraphers are members of the US military and not contractors? Was this drawing done as part of his official duties or is it something he wrote in a diary that the court martial obtained? Was it even made while he was still in the military and not something he made after the fact at the Court Martial's request? There are lots of things that could effect it, so while it may be PD, I don't feel clear enough on it that I could say to you "this is fine, upload it."
    For the Getty thing, if you can find a copy of the image published by the DoD that the DoD claims belongs to it, then it'll be okay. But that version says it's by Getty Images, so we're going to have to assume it is unless we can prove otherwise. I won't speak to whether or not GI or other wire services are regularly flouting copyright rules, but unless it can be shown in this specific case, we're going to have to assume good faith that they, as a large and respected commercial image firm, own the images they say they do. Vickser (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Plagiarism

    Wikipedia is the source for a good deal of my research. Do you inforce the use of citations with regard to the information my computer provides me that has been acquired from a Wikipedia reference? 72.70.16.178 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure exactly what you're asking about... If you are talking about reusing text from Wikipedia elsewhere, you must follow the requirements of the GFDL (generally including attribution and inclusion of a copy of the license) -- see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content -- unless what you are doing is fair use (which might include storing a copy on your computer for personal use). Academic honesty is also a good reason to cite your sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Images of "Secret Astronauts"

    Are the photographs of USAF astronauts on the PBS Astrospies NOVA web page in the public domain? On the Credits page, they state that all astronaut photos are "Courtesy U.S. National Archives and Records Administration". Although I could not find the images on the National Archives web site, the FAQ states that "the vast majority of the digital images ... are in the public domain". The photos look like standard USAF photos issue and so would be PD. Are these acceptable for upload to Wiki?

    Thanks, Skeet Shooter (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All the profile images would fall under either:

    or

    And are thus okay to use. Yes, if you had the original source it would be better, but those are their official profile shots, and we know photos of AF/Navy members taken during the course of their official duties are okay. So, yes, they're okay, and use those two templates when uploading. Vickser (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Skeet Shooter (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Timo Glock crash image

    Well I'm planning to upload an image of Glock's crash, called glock-hockenheim-z-08_200708.jpg . However, I forgot where I found it and I do not know the license Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, if you don't know where the photo came from, we cannot accept it on Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can remember was it was in some news website. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's from a news website, it's probably not going to be a free image. It would then need a fair use rationale, which may or may not be possible depending on the article text. Free or fair, you're going to need to know who took it, who owns the copyright, and where it could be found for it to be acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, if you don't have that, we're going to end up having to delete it. Vickser (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PLZ CHECK IS EVERYTHING CORRECT OF MY ARTICLE ON KARAM SINGH HISTORIAN???

    I AM GREAT GRAND SON OF KARAM SINGH HISTORIAN AND IAHD A PHOTO OF HIM WHICH I GOT SCANNED AND THE UPLOADED IT .HENCE IAHVE USED THE TAG PDF SELF..........ARE THEIR NECESSARY CHANGES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjotdhillon (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the copy of the biography. It belongs in the Karam Singh (historian) article and not in the Image:Karam Singh Historian.jpg image page.
    What is needed on the image page is information about the picture itself: Who took the photo? When did they take it and where? Is the photo still under the photographer’s copyright? If it is not, why not? If it is, under what terms does the photographer allow Wikipedia to use his photograph? Most particularly it needs a copyright tag, expressing under what terms Wikipedia can use the image.
    I don't understand the content you added with your last edit.
    By the way, please don’t use ALL CAPS. It is considered rude—like shouting. —teb728 t c 01:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    war trophy

    what is the history behind keeping silver trophies in officers mess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsgusain (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but this page is read by people who know about copyright questions. You might get an answer to that question at Wikipedia:Reference desk. —teb728 t c 20:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    programming fundamental

    can u tell me what the different between the following types os programming below:

    a) Structured programming

    b) modular programming

    c) object - oriented programming...


    can u tell me about that..

    plssss

    i need help... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.111.175 (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is for copyright questions. You might be able to get an answer at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing if you can convince them that you are not trying to get them to do your homework for you. Or you could try searching for structured programming, modular programming, and object-oriented programming in the search box. —teb728 t c 20:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bobby Driscoll - Public Domain rationale/tag for audio files

    Hello,

    I uploaded and embeded an excerpt of a radio show (concerning the 22nd. Academy Award Ceremony - 1950 - within the section/passage: The Window), which is entirely in the Public Domain, since its free availlable on archive.org. I then added an appropriate summary and a "Public Domain" rationale, which is actually used for images, but my file, I added is an audio file. Now I'm not certain, if I used the correct tags/rationales. I'd be grateful to learn about the correct ones to use. Regards:--Bylot (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you link to the actual url for the recording on archive.org and the media file here on wikipedia? Being on archive.org is not at all a guarantee that something is public domain. If you read their copyright policy on their FAQ [4], it seems pretty clear to me that they archive copyrighted material, but will take it down upon request. It seems likely to me that the file isn't going to be in the public domain, although I'd have to check up on audio copyrights and see if it was originally published with a copyright before giving you a definitive answer.
    Assuming it's non-free and depending on the text that accompanies the audio, you may be able to use up to a 30 second clip. You would do so under the tag:
    {{Non-free audio sample}}
    Which looks like

    .

    To get to the tag on the upload page, select Other, and then under Non-Free/Fair Use pick Music sample.
    For now, just link to the audio recording you have here as well as the original source so we can evaluate if they're free or not. Thank you. Vickser (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot for your prompt reply. I replaced the previous audio file of 1.27 minutes by a shorter one of only 49 seconds, saving the essential part. Then I edited the summary rationale appropriately and added the suggested media file tag plus a non-free use rationale. Within both rationales I linked to the original source (archive.org). To link only to this radio show on archive.org would mean, that one must either listen to this radio show there until those part or copy/download the complete audio file and cut out/extract it. With this contribution to the article on Bobby Driscoll I intended to improve it by allowing/offering to listen to this historical event additionally "live". Since it's a live audio recording of the 1950 Academy Award Ceremony it's definitely not reproducible and thus, (in my opinion) historically significant and not just another, even if rare, version of it.
    Again, thank you very much for taking time to check it.
    Regards:--Bylot (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Plaque

    Springfieldohio (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I recently uploaded a plaque dedicated to the subject of my article. It was promptly deleted. The history in the article says I was given 48 hours notice, but I do not see where I got it. I have been interested in the subject of my article for a long time. So, a long time ago I downloaded an image of a plaque to him that is on display in a public park. Unfortunately, I no longer remember where I found that image. I have had it for years. My travels recently took me close to that very far away public park, where I stopped and took a lot of photos (two of which I used in the article as photos of a public place that I had taken myself, which I did). However, I did not take a photo of that plaque, because I already had one. Since this very public plaque is on dispay in a very public place, is there any acceptable justification whereby I can upload it again and insert it into my article? If so, what is it? I do not see how its use infringes on anyone's rights. There are many "fair use" justifications listed on the copyright page, but none of them ever seem to be acceptable when I try to use one. It would make a nice addition to the article, if there is some way I can use it. Thanks.[reply]

    When you take a picture of things outside, they're often considered to be free under freedom of panorama. However, in the US freedom of panorma does not include 2D objects, such as plaques. Therefore, your picture of the plaque counts as a derivative work and is not going to be a free image. However, this does depend on how old the plaque is and when its original creator died. If the creator died over 70 years ago, or the plaque was put up before 1923 in the US, the plaque may be in the PD and thus your picture of it would be okay.
    If the plaque's not free, you may be able to write a fair use justification for it. You said you'd been writing them: could you provide a copy of the suggested rationale, a link to the image, and a link to the article where you would like to use it? If you do so, we can take a look and see if fair use can be justified, and if it can, how you'll need to write up the fair use rationale so it won't be deleted. Let me know if you have any questions. Vickser (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I uploaded it again. It is Brady's plaque.jpg and I reinserted it in the Samuel Brady article in the place I would use it. I may have bumped into the correct rationale this time, because I see no message threatening to delete it. If that message is going to appear, please let me know what rationale, if any, I should use. The plague says it was placed in 1989. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Springfieldohio (talk • contribs) 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I took a look at the plaque [5]. It was placed in 1989 and therefore is not in the public domain via age. It's a 2D work, and thus not covered under freedom of panorama. It doesn't have any utilitarian aspect, so you can't claim that exception, even though it's not particularly artistic. The plaque is a non-free image, and so the picture of the plaque is also non-free.
    So, that only leaves fair use. To justify fair use, you would need the addition of the plaque to add significantly to reader understanding of the topic. Essentially, you'd need critical commentary on the plaque in such a way that showing the plaque added comprehension in a way words could not. (For more on when non-free images are allowed, see WP:NFCC) That's certainly not true in the current case, where the plaque isn't even mentioned in the accompanying article. Nor do I think it would be possible with any version, since there's simply nothing particularly enlightening gained from the image of the plaque.
    In short, there's no rationale under which you can use the image, and it's unfortunately going to have to be deleted. I know it's not the answer you want and that it's always sad to lose a picture you want for the article, but we do have to enforce copyright standards and you'll still have a very well illustrated article. Vickser (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tag this {{PD-ineligible}}. The one sentence describing the site is not creative, nor are the basic declarations of when the plaque was placed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. I made that change before I say your post. —teb728 t c 21:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you guys think it's PD ineligible I'll bow to that. I considered whether it would be exempt under not crossing the threshold of originality, but after reading the commons bit on derivative works [6] I thought it wouldn't qualify for an exemption since it doesn't really have a purpose other than decoration and some thought had to go into the placement of the wording, typeface, etc. But I think you can make a pretty good case that there's just not enough in there to make it a work, and if you guys think that's the case I'll be willing to go along. Vickser (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Springfieldohio (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Just on last ditch question. One of the points of the article is to show that there is a lot of local pride in Kent, Ohio that "Brady's Leap" took place there. I think it would be entirely appropriate to mention that fact, along with pointing out that the citizens of Kent put up that plaque, not once but twice to commerate its happening. So, my question is would it do any good to add a discussion like that to that part of the article and specifically mention that plaque as part of that discussion?[reply]

    Sure. Be WP:BOLD. —teb728 t c 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Screenshots of sports stars

    Can I take screen shots off the TV and use these pictures on sports stars pages. WOuld this apply as fair usage ? ManfromDelmonte (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of non-free content on Wikipedia is much more restricted than US fair use law. In particular, a non-free image is not allowed if a free substitute could be obtained. (See WP:NFCC, particularly WP:NFCC#1.) This excludes most non-free images of living people. —teb728 t c 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair use images of three-dimensional art

    I was browsing through Category:User-created public domain images and found images such as Image:'Breaking Column', motorized stainless steel sculpture by --George Rickey--, 1988, --The Contemporary Museum, Honolulu--.jpg and Image:'Sky Gate', 24 foot high painted steel sculpture by Isamu Noguchi, Honolulu Hale (city hall), Honolulu, Hawaii, 1977.JPG tagged as being fair use images due to them being deriavative works. However, they were also tagged with {{pd-self}}. Is this valid or did the uploader just make a mistake?--balloonguy (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty much, there are two levels of copyright involved in a picture of a 3-dimensional work of art. The original copyright of the work of art, and the copyright of photograph itself, which though a derivative work, gets its own copyright because of the importance of light/shadow/framing involved with photographing 3D objects. To use a photo of 3D art, you need both to be okay. The photograph itself is being released to the public domain, that's what that tag means. The art works themselves (here by George Rickey and Isami Noguchi), are not in the public domain, but because the images significantly add to reader understanding of the articles and meet the rest of NFCC, we're using that copyright under fair use.
    I'm not sure if I'm explaining it 100% clearly, so let me know if you need me to clarify anything. Vickser (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you explained it perfectly, thanks!--balloonguy (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    non-free use

    The image I uploaded for an article on The Day Joyce Sheet was deleted as it was copyright of the Imperial War Museum. I would like to submit a non-free use rationale. How do I do this? Johnhk31 (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See the Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. You would put the non-free use rationale on the image page Image:Day joyce sheet.jpg. That image page, however, has been deleted; so you have no place to put it. One of the things you which the rationale needs would be a link to the article where the image is to be used, like Day Joyce Sheet. That article, however, has also been deleted; so you have no article to use it on at this time. Without being use in an article, the image will be deleted.
    I see that you are drafting an article at User:Johnhk31/Day Joyce Sheet. You should work on that draft—in particular providing references, which the draft sorely lacks. When the article is ready, you can move it to article space. Then you could upload the image again, including a use rationale. And then you could add the image to the article. —teb728 t c 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have revised this article and now want to move it to article space, but can't see how to do it.91.125.85.38 (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. Click on the “move” tab at the top of the page. Change the “To new title” field to Day Joyce sheet. (I recommend a lower case ‘s’ on sheet: By the Wikipedia:Manual of Style only the first letter of titles and proper nouns are capitalized.) And put a comment like “moving to article space” in the “Reason” field. —teb728 t c 08:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lordprice collection

    User:Lordprice has uploaded well over hundred fifty pictures most with a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence with uploader stating that all are copyright of the Lordprice Collection and used with permission. The website is a commercial site selling images and no indication that any of the images have been released. Some of the images on the Lordprice collection website have been scanned from other sources such as magazines and leaflets. Some images from this uploader have been deleted before (and some moved to commons!) Anybody have any comment, if they are possible unfree images is there a way of listing over 150 images at once. Left a message on uploader talk page on the 20 July asking if he has an OTRS ticket but he has not been online since. Second opinions welcome and if anybody agrees a suggestion of a way forward. Thank you MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As things stand right now, we have no evidence that "the Lordprice collection" is indeed the copyright holder of these images or that User:Lordprice represents that entity. Furthermore, many (most? all?) of the images carry a notice that they are "reproduced on Wikipedia with their permission", but this is incompatible with our requirement that images be free for others to reproduce as well.
    There's no easy way of listing these images en masse, other than making a bot request. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, as "reproduced on Wikipedia with their permission" and uploaded after 19 May 2005, they could all be speedied under CSD:I3. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Enver Hoxha image from a possibly out-of-print book

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Enver_Hoxha.jpg

    Description

    Enver Hoxha, from a book that is probably out of print Source

    Enver Hoxha: His Life and Work (1986) © Central Agency of Artistic Book Trade (also known as Ndermarrja e Perhapjes se Librit) Date

    Book was made in 1986, date of photo is probably early 80's. Author

    Editorial Board: Prof. Foto Cami - Chairman Prof. Sofokli Lazri, Leka Shkurti, Prof. Agim Popa, Anastas Kondo, Sevo Tarifa, Prof. Raqi Madhi, Prof. Vangjel Moisiu, Spiro Dede, Ajet Simixhiu

    Is this image allowed on Wikipedia? --Mrdie (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like it's not going to be allowed. An image taken in the 1980s and published in 1986 by a private company is not going to be in the public domain. And it's not going to be for a while: Albanian copyrights are for life + 70 years.[7] Since Enver Hoxha is dead, you might be able to justify it under fair use. However since there are pictures of him in the public domain already such as Image:Stalin molotov hoxha.jpg, I don't think you'll be able to make a very good case for it. To read about when non-free content is allowed, check out WP:NFCC Vickser (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Free use photo

    Hi. After seeing a request posted by Collectonian, I've been working with Kenlamberton in an attempt to get a photo for use in the article Ken Lamberton. He has photos of himself from others and uploaded them. That didn't work well. He is in contact with the person who took the photos and believes that they will allow them to be used in Wikipedia. I read over Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission, but still am fuzzy on the steps needed to get the approval to the proper places. If you can clarify this, I would be most appreciative. Suntag (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you seen WP:COPYREQ? It tells what permission is is required, how to request it, and how to submit it. —teb728 t c 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that clears things up. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have returned to my page on Wikipedia after some time away to find all the images I had put up missing. After looking at my messages, some questions about copyright have arisen.

    I must state that the images below are copyrighted and are used on cds that are copyrighted by me and my record company. I do not see what the problem is, as I have already declared this to be so.

    Please advise me on what I should do in order to have these images put back onto the page. Thankyou,

    File:TTTO FS cdcover.jpg

    File:Lastwind - Monster Trucks Table Pic.jpg

    File:Bud Direct Need To Know.jpg

    File:This That The Other Urban Angst.jpg

    File:Dub Direct Tenement Rydims.jpg

    Youre Sincerely, Richard Nowell Richard Nowell (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is that, other than in certain, specific cases, Wikipedia can only accept images that have been released under a free license or into the public domain. If you have the authority to do this then simply upload the images again under the same file names and choose an appropriate license (see options at this page). However, bear in mind that unless a contract was drawn up with the photographer specifically agreeing that the photos constitute works made for hire, the copyright in these photographs is likely owned by the photographer, in which case you would not have the authority to release them. In either case, if you are unable, or simply prefer not to release them in this way then we can't use them here. Sorry! -- Hux (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify slightly: Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. What is required is a free license. This means that you/your record company must allow anyone to use the images for anything, including commercial use and modification. The only restrictions you can make is to require they be credited to you and/or that the use be licensed under an equivalent license. —teb728 t c 19:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    copying pictur and text

    can I copy any pictur or copy any text from Wikipedia pages ?--~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asorong (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Asorong (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, subject to certain conditions that you can read here. What do you want to do with the pictures and text? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Zapfino copyrighted?

    Hello, THis is an inportant question fo me: Is Zapfino a copyrighted font? Or can I use it freely? Thanks, Kat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.24.9 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the Zapfino font file is copyrighted. You can't install a pirated copy on your computer. But if you have a legal copy on your computer, you can use it freely to create documents. —teb728 t c 06:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I would like to report a potential copyright violation. http://myanmarwikipedia.org is currently a redirect domain to http://wikimyanmar.org instead of http://my.wikipedia.org, the Wikipedia for the Myanmar language. Who do I contact? Thanks. --69.234.102.29 (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is a trademark of the Wikimedia foundation. They're the ones who would take action if any. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:IMGP2517.jpg

    I uploaded an image of my Mii I took on my Nintendo Wii, but it's saying it's non free media. Please help me. --S.C.Ruffeyfan 11:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like it's okay now. -- Hux (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You think? It seems like it's not going to be a free image to me. Other Wii images of Miis are non-free: Image:Mii channel.jpg, Image:Wiifitbmi.jpg, and Image:Mii Screenshot.JPG. I think any screenshot or picture of a Mii is going to be a derivative work of Nintendo, and thus non-free. In short, what this means is you're not going to be allowed to upload an image of your Mii to wikipedia unless it's under fair use for an article, and since the Mii and Wii articles are both already well-illustrated, you won't be able to justify this. Vickser (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Township Seal

    Wouldn't a township seal be considered free content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobes23 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It depends on the township - some towns (or the areas in which they are located) have rules stating that all government-produced works are in the public domain by default. Generally speaking, though, such seals are copyrighted more often than not. I'd suggest getting in touch with them, or searching for copyright information on the township's website if it has one. -- Hux (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    receipts

    how do i get a receipt that i created to be copyright so no one can still my ideal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.13.78 (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, this is a place for copyright questions that are related to wikipedia. It is not a general forum for non-related copyright questions. You may be able to find some answers at copyright.gov, which is maintained by the US government. Vickser (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional material

    I seem to remember a time when we could upload pictures that were taken from promo kits. Is this no longer the case? I ask because I have a ton of Motown promotional material, but I didn't want to start uploading it unless it's allowed. LoomisSimmons (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image permissions

    I am publishing a magazine and would like to include the following image in the magazine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2_Columbus_Circle.jpg

    The article is part of a guide to New York City and I would like to show how the building at 2 Columbus Circle has been renovated over the past few years. I plan to print over 100 copies and distribute it in Japan. Does GFDL allow me to use this image in my magazine? If it is allowed can I credit the photo as "(GFDL Renate O'Flaherty"?

    Please let me know. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbomb1 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see WP:REUSE for guidance on reusing Wikipedia content. As a practical matter, reuse of GFDL images is difficult in a print medium, because one of the license conditions is that the license itself must be reprinted along with such an image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Even if the license specifies "with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts" I have to print the copy of the license? Jbomb1 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Maps Street View

    Could I upload to Wikimedia an image of a building (of which no copyright exists on its image) which I derive by using Google Maps Street View? (ie use Street View to look at a house, screen shot the image, cut and crop the picture into a .jpg file, and upload)? Kransky (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Basically - no. Megapixie (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Metcard (back).jpg

    Wouldn't it be Free Use, because the main subject of the image is the ticket? Guy0307 (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there would be any copyright on that part of the card. All that's visible on the card is functional, rather than creative. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Lamenting the dead.jpg

    This image was public domain until January 1, 2008. Due to a change in Russian copyright law, it may have returned to copyrighted status. It is in use at several articles including World War II casualties where I recently replaced it with a public domain image.[8] After the edit got reverted I explained the change on talk and provided a citation for the change (the concern is also on the image licensing template). Talk:World_War_II_casualties#Images The editor who wants to keep it has not been cooperative.[9]

    I don't wish to have an edit war, so seeking independent opinion. It seems to me that the change in law is sufficiently documented, and the burden of proof shifts to those who want to regard this as public domain. So for the time being, it's safer to replace with an image that's definitely public domain in an article where it can be replaced with a free image. Is that a fair approach? DurovaCharge! 11:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say that we can keep it as long as it's on commons. The people there are usually the experts on these things and will remove it if it turns out to not be a free image after all. If and when they do, we can replace it here. Shanes (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see you're an admin on commons. Then you probably know more about this than me. I usually tend to just trust images that have been on commons for a long time. Anyway, I still think the image should be removed from commons first, if it doesn't belong there. Shanes (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yes, generally that would be the appropriate choice. It isn't often that a copyright law changes in this way. This does affect large numbers of images and the new law has been in force for over eight months. Surely this isn't the first time this question has come up? DurovaCharge! 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    On top of that, changes to copyright laws in other countries, especially ones that try to retroactively put items back under copyright, are usually not legally recognizable in other countries. In this case Wikimedia Commons can make the call, and if they make the call that it is a violation, we can further make the call that it isn't a violation for the English language Wikipedia. (That's not to say we necessarily would, though I think the logic is sound.) So we seem to be fine two different ways. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Commons policy is to respect local policy as well as hosting country policy. DurovaCharge! 17:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Odwalla pictures/Fair Use?

    Hey, I'm working on the Odwalla page, and I going to go try and get pictures of Odwalla products (drinks and protein bars). So, before I do, does a picture of a bottle or wrapper that I take with my camera need a fair use tag? I'm not sure, so I thought "better safe than sorry". Thanks. Also, what about an Odwalla display, with a lot of different Odwalla products in it? Thanks again. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A picture of an Odwalla bottle or wrapper would need a fair use tag as they count as works of art and your picture would be a derivative work. An Odwalla display used to demonstrate what Odwalla products look like would also need a fair use tag, since it would still be a derivative work. Vickser (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks! Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Montwood_SAT.jpg

    Hi, can some one clarify the whole copyright thing that appeared? I don't understand it at all. Image:Montwood_SAT.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omiks3 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Basically, images from google maps are not free images, so to be eligible for wikipedia, they'd need to qualify under our fair use criteria, as explained at WP:NFCC. An image used to demonstrate currently standing buildings, such as this one, is not eligible for fair use. As it's not a free image, and can't be used under our fair use policy, it's not acceptable for use on wikipedia. Vickser (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The most recent discussion of this topic that I am aware of was at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Use_of_rickross.com_and_religionnewsblog.com_as_external_links.2Fconvenience_links.

    The most salient points were –

    • rickross.com's copyright disclaimer:
    rickross.com: "All META tags, page titles, keywords and other content descriptions used throughout this website are only intended to assist search engines for research and locating purposes. This in no way, shape or form is intended to mislead anyone by implying any official representation and/or relationship exists between this website and the owners of any trademarks, service marks and/or copyrights, which may contain the same keywords and/or titles." ... "Any publisher, Webmaster or news service (i.e., official and legal holder of copyright) that objects to their material being included in this archive may request that it be removed and/or that future material be excluded. An official written and signed request sent via fax or regular mail made by the copyright holder and/or their legal representative on company or legal letterhead will be honored."
    • Some of the material hosted on rickross.com is for sale online by the legitimate owners. Example: [11] [12]
    • rickross.com also functions as a commercial site, offering expert witness and intervention/deprogramming services complete with hourly rates: [13] [14] [15] [16] as well as selling DVDs [17] and soliciting donations [18]

    The links are not allowed by our copyright policies. Clear and obvious copyright violations are not allowed, and the little weird disclaimers on that site in no way is a proper legal justification. DreamGuy (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a site http://animanga.ru which is well used in pages about anime and manga in russian wikipedia. That Site does not contain pirated materials but on almost all pages with information there are links "download here" to the real pirated materials on another site, like fully scanned manga. Is it really allowed in any Wikipedia?

    Discussion in russian about that question is here. --118.236.169.90 (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait, are you asking about whether they are allowed here or allowed on the Russian Wikipedia? Here, absolutely not, as we don't link to sites the enable copyright violations in such a blatant way. There, I don't know, but you should probably ask over there instead of here. DreamGuy (talk)
    I doubt that the Russian WP's copyright policy is significantly different from the one we have here, but it can't hurt to have a look what it says: [19] By the sounds of it, links to the site are inappropriate. Jayen466 14:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am asking here because opinion about copyrights in Russia is quite... "russian". Some people say "that manga is not licensed in Russia and has no russian translation, so any can distribute it if for free", but still Wikipedia materially is generally situated in USA --118.236.169.90 (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, legally they are just wrong. How you can go about convincing them or forcing them to accept that is another question entirely. License or translation are completely irrelevant, and people can't distribute it for free, not by US law or by Russian law, assuming Russia was a signature to the Berne Convention on copyright laws, which I am pretty sure they were. DreamGuy (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    General problem is that site is not distributing pirated materials, just has links to them. --118.236.169.90 (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no functional difference. Providing a link to click to get pirated software is the same as distributing it. If it were not the same, why would we prohibit links to sites that violate copyright? We'd be legally protected by the excuse that we didn't do it. DreamGuy (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anime and and manga are a bit strange: there's an informal understanding that, so long as a work isn't licensed in a given country/language, distribution of fan translations is permitted. Once a work is licensed, those translations are expected to vanish from the download sites. --Carnildo (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That may well be, but informal understandings by some anime fans (do the anime producers agree to that? that's the important part) are not our concern. Copyright laws and Wikipedia policies are our concerns. DreamGuy (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Old Ordnance Survey maps

    I'd like to use a small section from an 1890 OS map (to illustrate the position of a structure then standing but long since demolished), which I understand to be public domain because it's over 50 years old, as per license {{OldOS}}. Does that PD only apply to a copy taken from an actual paper map? or could I take it from British History Online. Their copyright statement at the bottom of that page which reads "Copyright (c) and database right Crown Copyright and Landmark Information Group Ltd (all rights reserved 2007)" makes me think I couldn't, but a more informed opinion than mine would be helpful. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    They, like a lot of places, stamp everything with copyright notices just to try to protect everything even if copyright law doesn't support it. An 1890 OS map is clearly in public domain, and so would any copy of it that doesn't add some sort of artistic addition to it (coloration, added info, montaging with photos, whatever) That site just has straight copies and they cannot prevent you from using those copies. DreamGuy (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's actually different in the UK and straight digitizations can be copyrighted separately. Fine for wikipedia, but don't upload it to Wikimedia Commons. --Random832 (contribs) 15:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never seen any indication whatsoever that that is the case. Copyright has always only covered new works of art, with art in its broadest legal sense still requiring at least some creativity. Mere digitizing doesn't give a new copyright where none previously existed. DreamGuy (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there is the graves case then there is Hyperion Records v Sawkins. Depening on how you read it UK law is either outright such images can be protected by copyright or rather confused.Geni 19:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hyperion Records v Sawkins, which I've looked up, doesn't seem to have anything to do with this issue at all and "graves case" (presumably the 1869 one) is outdated (based largely on copyright laws long superceded by new ones) and involved a rather complicated copying process with archaic methods that would have required a lot of skill. Digitization requires no skill at all. DreamGuy (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See this.Geni 01:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Phoebe Legere

    Hi, I am having trouble adding the following image to the WIKI on me. http://www.roulette.org/images/records/blue.jpg from the article http://www.roulette.org/noisy/cds/ein015.html 

    I get the following message:

    Non-free use media rationale – non-free album cover –- WARNING: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebe_Legere does not appear to exist! Check capitalization. Enter only the exact title of a single article with no link brackets or other formatting. It is also possible the indicated article was deleted.

    What am I doing wrong?


    Thanks so much, Phoebe Legere user name Protectorofthemind (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Protectorofthemind[reply]

    I own the copyright on this image.

    I fixed the link for you. The problem was that you put the full URL where the template expected just the article title, Phoebe Legere. —teb728 t c 17:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your non-free use rationale has another problem, which I can’t fix. Wikipedia generally accepts use of images of album covers for articles on the album but not to show what the performer looks like in a biography. So this image could be used in an article on Blue Curtain but not on Phoebe Legere.
    Are you sure that you personally own the copyright on the album cover? I suspect that it is owned by your producer or your record label. If you personally own the copyright, you could replace the {{non-free album cover}} with a free license tag from WP:ICTIC. Then the image could be used anywhere. —teb728 t c 17:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    a question of the bible

    I have a sister who is also my best friend and I love her dearly. I am a born again,spirit filled christian.I believe that the only way to heaven is through JESUS CHRIST and that the bible is the word of GOD. She on the other hand does believe in GOD just not in JESUS, is that possible to believe in one and not the other? Also she doesn't believe in the bible.Only that it is a book written by some people that had extra time on there hands. She does believe that JESUS was a person and thats just it that he was a person just like you and I can y

    ou give me some advice while I seek the holy spirits wisdom? 

                                     !!!!
    Apologies, but this page is for wikipedia-related media copyright questions, not spiritual questions. You'll have to search else where for your answers. Vickser (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    About suppossed copyrighted photos

    Can anyone tell me if I can use a photo of a person that was publissed on a local press web in a biography here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidia (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally not, no. There is no supposed at all that enters into play, they are copyrighted photos. DreamGuy (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Odwalla pics

    I'm looking for pictures for Odwalla, and I was wondering if either of the images on [20] are allowable, particularly the second one. Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably not. They're using the first courtesy of a local news station, and the second is CNN's own photo, both held under copyright. You'll have to request permission in order to use them. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dang. That's what I figured, but I thought I might get lucky. Thanks Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NASA image 57911main_Earth_Energy_Budget.jpg

    I would like to add this image:

    http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/57911main_Earth_Energy_Budget.jpg

    To Earth's energy budget to replace the image:

    [[Image:Greenhouse Effect.svg]]

    What must I do now?

    Veteran0101 (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be helpful if you had a link to a page on the NASA website where that image appears in context, so we can check it really comes from NASA themselves. If it does, it ought to be free (public domain) because NASA is a US federal government agency. You can then upload it and tag it with {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How does copywrite apply to user created SVG versions of images?

    When a user/author creates a new SVG graphic based on an existing image, because of a request for an SVG version, yet who is not the creator or rights holder of the original non-SVG image, how should the new author apply copywrite?

    Also, what should the author do if the original image has special license information? An Example: Image:50InfantryBCTSSI.jpg

    Wgabrie (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=230926677"