Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/November
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Request for clarification, re: Jockey_Logo.svg
Some five and one half years ago, that which was styled as "Image:JockeyLogo.png" was flagged by BetacommandBot for inadequate information in the way of fair use rationale. The image currently used for the article for Jockey International is File:Jockey_Logo.svg and it seems to have a rationale in place. I apologize that I am new to this part of the editing process and am at a loss as to how to proceed. The purpose of this request is to find out whether the image may remain in the article (assuming the requirement has been satisfied) or whether it must be removed. In addition, if it can remain, what is to happen with the warning on the talk page? NorthCoastReader (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do not worry, File:JockeyLogo.png was deleted because it was no longer used, and the .svg version does have an appropriate fair use rationale. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your assistance! NorthCoastReader (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Free or non-free photo?
Have a 1974 PBS publicity photo I'd like to add to the Cleveland Amory article. The photo is similar except for background to the dustjacket photo of his book, Man Kind? Can the PBS publicity photo be used here as free use or does it have to be considered non-free because of the book cover? Thanks, We hope (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how either one would be considered free. PBS releasing a photo as PR does not constitute a free license. Since the subject is dead, it could be uploaded (as non-free) under WP:FUC, though. -Seidenstud (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the whole audio clip necessary or replaceable? --George Ho (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Easily replaceable by free text. Nominated for FFD. --MASEM (t) 04:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair use image question
There cannot be a free image of Butterfly Trek Madone because all images would be a derivative work of the design of the bike. With that in mind, would this image of Armstrong riding the bike qualify for fair use, or this image of just the bike? Ryan Vesey 20:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the "shape" of the bicycle can't be copyrighted (it's a utility object), but obviously the decorations on it make those copyrightable. An image taken of the bike where the bike itself was de minimus could possibly be free, but this, as it would seem, obliterate any understanding of the decorations on the bike. So yes, we should assume to capture the image of the decorated bike, a non-free will only be possible. That said, the question is whether you can get an image of the bike that is "more free" than the one you've linked. That one has the second copyright of the photographer , capturing the lighting and composition, in addition to the derivative copyright of the bike decoration. It would be better if a photo of the bike - releasing the photo as a CC-BY or equivalent license, in addition to the derivative work license - could be had. The question is the fate of the bike once it was purcased - was it kept in a private home or is it used elsewhere? --MASEM (t) 20:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry, pet peeve: it's de minimis.--ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Masem, I've never heard anyone talk of "more free" - not in the case of something that's either copyright one person or two, at least (different might be the case of CC-BY-SA-NC or something). However, what I think you're getting at is that fair use isn't supposed to undermine commercial work. A photograph of a bike wouldn't undermine commercial sales of said bike, but a commercial photograph might undermine commercial use of that photograph. For that reason having a photographer prepared for their part to give up their copyright would be a good start. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- You got the gist of it. Let's say we wanted a picture of a notable statue on public display in the US. Per US' Freedom of Panorama, a photograph of the statue would be a derivative work (assuming copyright still applies), so we'd never be able to get around that copyright. But we would never allow a professional photograph of the statue as long as we can get a Wikipedian to take the same image - the latter can always upload the photograph under a free license, with the understanding that that's just the photograph aspects, and not the underlying statue itself that's being released as free. It could not be hosted on commons, and we'd want a non-free rational and the like for it here on en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is there an actual policy on this "levels of freeness"? I sort of feel like an image is either free or it isn't. In any case, I've been doing a lot of researching and have been unable to figure out who bought it. If that's the case, I doubt that a free image could reasonably be found or created since it is most likely in someone's personal gallery. Ryan Vesey 22:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- You got the gist of it. Let's say we wanted a picture of a notable statue on public display in the US. Per US' Freedom of Panorama, a photograph of the statue would be a derivative work (assuming copyright still applies), so we'd never be able to get around that copyright. But we would never allow a professional photograph of the statue as long as we can get a Wikipedian to take the same image - the latter can always upload the photograph under a free license, with the understanding that that's just the photograph aspects, and not the underlying statue itself that's being released as free. It could not be hosted on commons, and we'd want a non-free rational and the like for it here on en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I can't point to any policy but you can think about it. Imagine the case of a sculpture that is commissioned for a statue and installs it in 1980, he subsequently dies in 2000, making the copyright term on the statue extend to 2095. A professional photograph and myself take a photo of the statue and publish it on the same day in 2010; the photographer uses a standard copyright clause, I license it as CC-BY. Neither photo will be "free" per NFC until as early as 2095; however, because I CC-BY'd, my photo will become immediately free, while the professional photo will be 95+life, which could be for many years. If the photo of the statue is necessary per NFCC#8 we would want the free-est version that we can get, that being mine since it becomes free the soonest. This might be an extreme case but I only picked the years to simplify the copyright assessment. There are probably several works published between 1923 and 1978 where there are similar timing issues like that that we should take advantage of getting the free-est work possible. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it can be useful to begin with your original question. To reword it, the question is asking if the act of using a work created by photographer Alex Murray to illustrate a text about a work created by artist Damien Hirst (or a text about a bicycle) would constitute a fair use of the work of Alex Murray. The answer to that question is no, that would not be a fair use of the work of Mr. Murray, because the text to which it would be appended is not a commentary about the creative work of Mr. Murray. In other words, an element to consider is: whose work is being made use of, to comment about what. One can make "fair use" of a work created by artist A to report or to comment about artist A's work, but not to report or comment about the work of someone else, without making any substantial comment about artist A. To continue with your more recent question, a work can include parts created by more than one author. The photo of a sculpture includes some creative work by the sculptor and some creative work by the photographer. If either the work of the sculptor or the work of the photographer (or, of course, the work of both) is not free, the photograph, considered as a whole, contains some non-free material and cannot be considered free. Now, let's put all that together. Suppose, for example, that a newspaper or magazine sends one of its photographers (let's call him P) to take a photo of the unveiling of a statue created by a sculptor (let's call her S). The magazine will use the photo to illustrate an article that reports the event of the unveiling or that comments about the work of the sculptor. The magazine is then making fair use of the work of sculptor S. Note that the magazine is not using the work of the photographer P under the "fair use" doctrine (in the "copyright" sense of the expression "fair use"). The magazine is not writing an article about the photographic career of photographer P, nor about how photographer P captured this artistic photograph of an autumn scenery with accessorily some nondescript statue in the background. In our example, the magazine is making use of the work of the photographer P because the magazine has a contractual agreement with photographer P. Mutatis mutandis, Wikipedia is in the situation of the magazine. We can make use of the photograph of a photographer who offers us his photo under a free license to illustrate an article about a sculpture. We are then using the sculptor's work (pictured on the photo illustrating the article) in fair use, without the sculptor's authorization, but we are using the photographer's work not under fair use at all but under the explicit license of the photographer. That is basically what Masem is saying, I think. And we have the template such as Template:Photo of art for that type of situations. The result is seen in the description pages of the files using the template. Note that the "fair use" part applies to the creative work pictured, which is commented in an article, whereas the freely licensed part applies to the creative work of the photographer. However, we could not use a photographer's non-free photo without his explicit authorization to illustrate the sculptor's work. As to the question is that written in policy, well, yes, it's the conjunction of two elements of policy: 1) Wikipedia requires free content, 2) with an exception for actual fair use. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is also another issue. If the photographer licenses his contribution under a free licence, then the photo is completely free in countries which offer freedom of panorama for statues. On the other hand, if the photographer doesn't license his contribution under a free licence, then the photo is unfree worldwide. If you take a photo of a US statue and put it under CC-by, then the image is completely free to use in the UK, but needs to rely on fair use in the US. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think it can be useful to begin with your original question. To reword it, the question is asking if the act of using a work created by photographer Alex Murray to illustrate a text about a work created by artist Damien Hirst (or a text about a bicycle) would constitute a fair use of the work of Alex Murray. The answer to that question is no, that would not be a fair use of the work of Mr. Murray, because the text to which it would be appended is not a commentary about the creative work of Mr. Murray. In other words, an element to consider is: whose work is being made use of, to comment about what. One can make "fair use" of a work created by artist A to report or to comment about artist A's work, but not to report or comment about the work of someone else, without making any substantial comment about artist A. To continue with your more recent question, a work can include parts created by more than one author. The photo of a sculpture includes some creative work by the sculptor and some creative work by the photographer. If either the work of the sculptor or the work of the photographer (or, of course, the work of both) is not free, the photograph, considered as a whole, contains some non-free material and cannot be considered free. Now, let's put all that together. Suppose, for example, that a newspaper or magazine sends one of its photographers (let's call him P) to take a photo of the unveiling of a statue created by a sculptor (let's call her S). The magazine will use the photo to illustrate an article that reports the event of the unveiling or that comments about the work of the sculptor. The magazine is then making fair use of the work of sculptor S. Note that the magazine is not using the work of the photographer P under the "fair use" doctrine (in the "copyright" sense of the expression "fair use"). The magazine is not writing an article about the photographic career of photographer P, nor about how photographer P captured this artistic photograph of an autumn scenery with accessorily some nondescript statue in the background. In our example, the magazine is making use of the work of the photographer P because the magazine has a contractual agreement with photographer P. Mutatis mutandis, Wikipedia is in the situation of the magazine. We can make use of the photograph of a photographer who offers us his photo under a free license to illustrate an article about a sculpture. We are then using the sculptor's work (pictured on the photo illustrating the article) in fair use, without the sculptor's authorization, but we are using the photographer's work not under fair use at all but under the explicit license of the photographer. That is basically what Masem is saying, I think. And we have the template such as Template:Photo of art for that type of situations. The result is seen in the description pages of the files using the template. Note that the "fair use" part applies to the creative work pictured, which is commented in an article, whereas the freely licensed part applies to the creative work of the photographer. However, we could not use a photographer's non-free photo without his explicit authorization to illustrate the sculptor's work. As to the question is that written in policy, well, yes, it's the conjunction of two elements of policy: 1) Wikipedia requires free content, 2) with an exception for actual fair use. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Free use images - how to get some permission?
Hi.
I wrote a new page about the Temple Pyx and I need a photo. Most of the pictures I can find are poor quality and the ones that are decent could possibly be copyrighted. What do I do people?
There's also another image I want to use as it is related. If links are not allowed here please remove. http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartmfrost/6913840986/in/set-72157629409785532 It is the only image of this I can find and I need to know how to get permission to use it.
Thanks PunkRockerPenguin (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- This Flickr user Stuart Frost seems to have a decent collection of images. You could write him an email and ask him to release one or more of them under a free license, e.g. CC-by-SA. This would have to include commercial reuse, otherwise we can't host the picture. If he actually changes the original license of his photos you could upload them here or, even better, at Wikimedia Commons. De728631 (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this simple enough to qualify as {{PD-textlogo}} rather than {{Non-free logo}}? Useddenim (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Definitely. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- I concur. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Invert colors on logo?
Hello, in browsing the files for Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory I have found a higher-quality version of File:Idlogo.jpg. It is almost identical to that image, but it is alpha transparent, crisper, and is a PNG (versus image-raping JPG).
I would like to upload it. However, it is white-on-transparent, thus would be not visible. Because File:Idlogo.jpg is black-on-transparent, I figured I would modify the image in GIMP by inverting the colors. Can I do this before uploading it? Are there any special steps I must take before I do this?
Both versions of my found image (inverted colors and non-inverted colors) may be found at http://imgur.com/a/ACMdb#Igafc . − Elecbullet (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
3 media files on Commons
I would like to add 3 media files on Commons: commons:Category:List of archive formats commons:Category:Digital container format commons:Category:CaList of RISC OS filetype S
- If there is content to go in these categories there should be no problem adding categories. But where is your question? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
My question is May I create a CreativeCommons website of 3 media files commons:Category:List of archive formats commons:Category:Digital container format commons:Category:CaList of RISC OS filetype S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blibrestez55 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking for some feedback about the appropriate licensing for this logo. As far as I can tell it's been tagged non-free since it was uploaded until September when it was changed with no discussion that I see. It has just recently been reverted, again with no discussion, although none of the old FURs reinstated.
I'm personally of the opinion that it should be tagged non-free to be on the safe side, but I'd like others to weigh in before I go and try to fix everything that needs fixing for this image. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- I reverted the description page to its traditional version, as the precautionary principle would seem to require unless a consensus is reached to change it. FWIW, someone tried to upload some version of this logo to Commons and it was deleted there. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- I thought it would've been put on Commons at some point but I couldn't find it, thanks for that link. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Before submitting an article:
I have written an article on someone mentioned in the DNB about whom little has been written. Wikipedia is asking for information. 1. I had to use primary sources. The only article on the man in question was brief and written in the 1950s.
2. I wrote an article on the same topic for Garden Magazine and they hold the copyright. The article I wish to submit to Wikipedia is much shorter but obviously the references are much the same.
3. Can I mention this published article under 'Further Reading'? Can one recommend one#s own work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMTrafford-Owen (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I presume you are referring to this Joseph Harrison in the DNB. Did you look up Google books as there appear to be many references to him in public domain books there? In fact some of your inline citations may even be found online too. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- ″The references to Joseph Harrison online are all to his magazines, particularly The Floricultural Cabinet, original plates from which are on sale. There is nothing about his life. There are errors in the DNBJMTrafford-Owen (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's unfortunate but, one way or another, we require reliable sources. Unsourced statement that may be questioned may be removed for that reason, and original research cannot be used. ww2censor (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- "The article I wrote for Garden History was subjected to a referee. I gave the wrong title of the magazine above.JMTrafford-Owen (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- ″The references to Joseph Harrison online are all to his magazines, particularly The Floricultural Cabinet, original plates from which are on sale. There is nothing about his life. There are errors in the DNBJMTrafford-Owen (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you tell me whether I should submit this article?JMTrafford-Owen (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
AImage seems like a blatant copyvio from the cbc link with no other data. Should this be deleted?Lihaas (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the metadata image title says, "Bishop Tawadros of the Nile Delta province of Beheira, 60, who is one of the five candidates vying to become the new Coptic pope, poses for a picture in the Egyptian capital on October 17, 2012. Egypt's Coptic Christians voted on October 29, 2012 for a new leader to succeed Pope Shenuda III, who died in March leaving behind a community anxious about its status under an Islamist-led government. AFP PHOTO / STR (Photo credit should read STR/AFP/Getty Images)" So it is a commercial image. —teb728 t c 05:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Something a little different: Links to an external site
Hi,
We currently have 197 articles which link to thirdworldtraveler.com. The site tends to have substantial "exerpts" of third-party content which is often copyrighted, but I have not seen evidence that thirdworldtraveler got permission for these exerpts and I'm concerned that they stray into copyvio territory, in which case the links should be removed. What does everyone think? Here's a random sample of ten thirdworldtraveler pages which we currently link to:
- James E. Akins links to [1].
- Abdullah Almalki links to [2]
- Fernand St. Germain links to [3]
- Olisa Agbakoba links to [4]
- Kurdish villages depopulated by Turkey links to [5]
- Interservice rivalry links to [6]
- Electronic herd links to [7]
- James Reston links to [8]
- Ray McGovern links to [9]
- Mass society links to [10]
Most are substantial magazine articles or newspaper editorials, copied whole; some pick several paragraphs from a book which suits the point that the site owners want to make. (Obviously this is just a random sample of 10 pages; other thirdworldtraveler pages may contain larger or smaller chunks of other people's content). It would seem that the original source is usually subject to copyright. I have already removed a few links which I felt failed WP:ELNEVER, but am open to suggestions... and removing the links is often controversial because thirdworldtraveler tends to get cited for controversial or fringey content. What do you think? bobrayner (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is allowable for sites to use limited amounts of other's works in the essence of fair use, including selected entire articles.
- But, this does not sound like what thirdworldtraveler is doing. They are using large chunks of content wholesale, and that well passes the fair use line into copyvio. And as per ELNO, we shouldn't link to them, ever - EL or as references. You probably can request it to get added to WP:BLACKLIST to make it difficult to add such links to pages. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I see where you're coming from here. But can I please please please request, Bobrayner, that instead of simply deleting citations in hundreds of articles that contain thirdworldtraveler links, you change the citation to the original source whose copyright you believe is being violated? In fact, could you go through the many changes you have already made and repair this problem? Otherwise you are making cited claims appear unsupported and leaving the mess for others to clean up. Thank you. I would also add that thirdworldtraveler is a useful resource with all kinds of content that should not be blacklisted. groupuscule (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, both, for your comments. (Sorry if I was a little snarky earlier - my "to do" list is getting out of control...) bobrayner (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I see where you're coming from here. But can I please please please request, Bobrayner, that instead of simply deleting citations in hundreds of articles that contain thirdworldtraveler links, you change the citation to the original source whose copyright you believe is being violated? In fact, could you go through the many changes you have already made and repair this problem? Otherwise you are making cited claims appear unsupported and leaving the mess for others to clean up. Thank you. I would also add that thirdworldtraveler is a useful resource with all kinds of content that should not be blacklisted. groupuscule (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Images from tinypic.com
Is it possible to use pictures found on tinypic.com on Wikipedia without violating copyrights? The Terms of Use for TinyPic (http://plugin.tinypic.com/terms.php) state: " By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the TinyPic Services, you hereby grant to TinyPic and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels. Content will be publicly available, and TinyPic and other Users may copy or display Content outside of the TinyPic Services through the quick link feature or through any other display mechanisms." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaxfiore (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ajaxfiore. Definitely wait for a second (and expert) opinion, but I don't think that license is compatible. While we might be able to import the image, a third-party user would not be able to take the image from wikipedia without getting entangled in the tinypic license. In short, those images are not unencumbered for everyone, so they would be problematic here. GaramondLethe 20:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reading the part of the license quoted in the question above, the rights granted by the licensor seem to stop with the immediate licensee, who is an individual tinypic user. It does not say that the license offered by the licensor is extended further, to third parties. That text is missing provisions comparable to those found, for example, in the Creative Commons BY 3.0 license, article 8, paragraphs a and b: "Each time You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work or a Collection [or an Adaptation], the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License." Is there something comparable to that somewhere else in the text of the tinypic license? -- Asclepias (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your responses. It seems that there isn't something comparable to the quoted text of the CC BY 3 in the tinypic license. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, so this was a much closer call that I had first thought. Based on section 6.1 of the license only "users" have the right to duplicate. Thanks, Asclepias, I learned something. GaramondLethe 00:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- When I wrote my comment, I thought I was just expanding a little more on what you had already well answered. Now I see that our answers were highlighting different facets of the problem, although they are complementary. The basic problem is indeed that the tinypic contract states that the licensor offers the license to tinypic users. Therefore, If someone wants to become a licensee and reuse the licensed material, they must first become a tinypic user by at least visiting personally the tinypic website and agreeing to be bound by the whole tinypic contract, which comprises a lot of other stuff besides the licensing paragraph. That aspect is expressed when you say that those images are encumbered. If one must agree to an unrelated contract with a business before being offered a license, that license isn't really free. But I suppose that this restriction of the offer to tinypic users could still be lifted, and the images thus be given a free status, if the license went on and counterbalanced that restriction with another clause that allowed the tinypic users, not only to reuse the material themselves, but also to freely relicense that material and their eventual derivatives, or to extend to people who are not tinypic users the offer of the licensing paragraph of the tinypic contract, or some other clause that could be interpreted as an agreement from the original author to the fact that the restiction could be lifted. I wouldn't want to leave the impression that a license always needs such an explict clause to be considered a free license. The Wikimedia projects consider as free licenses some very short licenses that are fine as long as they don't contain restrictions that would make them non-free. The problem with the tinypic contract is that once it states the restriction limiting the license to tinypic users, then this license is not free enough, unless another clause lifts that restriction, and that doesn't seem to be the case. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, so this was a much closer call that I had first thought. Based on section 6.1 of the license only "users" have the right to duplicate. Thanks, Asclepias, I learned something. GaramondLethe 00:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- I see, thank you very much. Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Concerts and sport events
Hi all,
I've been reading around, and I'm still not sure if i have the rights to share the following:
Pictures of a famous person (musician) taken in a concert by myself (say Tina Turner, Joe Cocker...) Videos of songs performed in this concert (both full and partial), also taken by myself
Pictures and videos of sport events.
Also theese were taken in England, France, Spain and Germany. Do the laws of theese countries apply, or those of the U.S.A.? And how do i know if that's legal in those countries?
Thanks a lot! Ibon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obibon (talk • contribs) 01:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- For pictures, if you have signed no contract, and are not at work, then you should own copyright on the pictures that you take at a concert or sports event. For video, the song music and words would have copyright, and the performer would have some rights too, so for concerts we could not count this as something that you exclusively could grant a free license on. For a sports event your video may not have any other copyright material in it. So you should be able to upload your static images here and grant a free license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- If the event required a ticket to enter, then it is possible (likely?) for the ticket to carry conditions regarding photo and videos recording. While you generally own the copyrights to photographs taken by you, whether you are free to release those photos for commercials purpose for example are not so easily stated. Then there's the question of whether third parties are legally okay to use any photos released by a ticket holder against the condition of their ticket. KTC (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- No privity of contract exists between third parties and the entertainer/venue—so there are relatively few causes of action available. However, it would theoretically be possible for the ticket to be interpreted as a contract you agreed to, and for it to include an express term assigning copyright to the entertainer/venue. (Does it specifically say that?) Then, under the right circumstances (actual knowledge of & material contribution to the infringement), the third party might conceivably be held secondarily liable. That suit is a complicated, expensive proposition.
In other words, suing third-party re-users or the WMF would be a long shot; it's instead you that needs to watch out for yourself, depending on the applicable copyright law. U.S. law applies to Wikipedia (and to you if you subject yourself to its jurisdiction
, or if the U.S. Justice Department feels like it), and foreign law applies to you (but not to Wikipedia, unless it subjects itself to that jurisdiction—which it probably does not).In the U.S., there may be a copyright on a choreographed performance (explanation), but it's unclear if this applies to the material you have recorded.
One other thing to (briefly) consider is de minimis (incidental) reproduction of copyrighted material. For example, the logo painted on a soccer field might be copyrighted, but there would be no finding of infringement if it only played an incidental role in the overall photograph (subject to a judge's ruling). I suppose freedom of panorama might be in play as well, if there are permanent artistic works installed there.
As a practical matter, many images on Wikipedia (and on the Internet for that matter) have only the uploader's declaration to prove that they are unencumbered by others' copyrights—and that's satisfactory because in the vast majority of situations, there's little likelihood of undesirable consequences. If you accept our explanations, and don't mind risking the one-in-a-million chance of getting sued, then I think it's a net positive to upload the images. TheFeds 09:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is not about whether there's a small risk of being sued; we need to assure our media is freely redistributable, period. If the concern venue or group says no photography is allowed, then a photo taken is not free. --MASEM (t) 09:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- No privity of contract exists between third parties and the entertainer/venue—so there are relatively few causes of action available. However, it would theoretically be possible for the ticket to be interpreted as a contract you agreed to, and for it to include an express term assigning copyright to the entertainer/venue. (Does it specifically say that?) Then, under the right circumstances (actual knowledge of & material contribution to the infringement), the third party might conceivably be held secondarily liable. That suit is a complicated, expensive proposition.
- I think my last paragraph may not have been fully clear: the low risk of suit isn't itself a justification for uploading—it's just a consequence of holding a strong claim to the rights in the first place.
As the "no photography" principle you cite, that's not generally true. We're mainly concerned with the freedom to reproduce the photo on Wikipedia and in other third-party works. This isn't about contract rights, which are only enforceable by the venue upon the photographer. Absent a valid assignment of copyrights in the contract, the venue's displeasure is for the most part not our problem (but it is the photographer's problem, as I mentioned). TheFeds 20:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think my last paragraph may not have been fully clear: the low risk of suit isn't itself a justification for uploading—it's just a consequence of holding a strong claim to the rights in the first place.
list
What is the copyright status of the list of the top entry of a (series of) lists released on a regular basis? (There is something about a compiled list being copyrighted.) The question refers to the list at Top 20 Countdown. RJFJR (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- If the list is compiled from factual data (such as records sold, etc.) it cannot be copyrighted. If it is compiled from any subjective factors, then the list is copyrighted and we cannot recreate it in whole. --MASEM (t) 06:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- That explanation follows the Feist v. Rural line of reasoning, and is generally correct. However, the decision there isn't absolute—for example, fair use might be a valid reason to reproduce the material entirely. In that case, absent a well-developed policy on exactly what may be considered fair use of text on Wikipedia, we should discuss the proposed use (probably on the article's talk page). TheFeds 08:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does have a well-developed policy on non-free text; it is WP:NFCC (the same as for media). Fair use is really not very relevant, for the policy is intentionally more restrictive than fair use law. It is difficult to see how the use of a whole list could satisfy this policy. It would require a very strong non-free use rationale, addressing in detail why no free substitute could be created, why use of a portion would not suffice, and why the use significantly increases reader understanding of the article. The non-free text guidelines envision brief quotations. —teb728 t c 09:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- We actually had input from the WMF on this and they definitely want us to err on caution on wholesale inclusion of creative lists (barring where permission has been saught, as in the AFI lists.) As TEB states, this is more restrictive than fair use but allowed since we're on their servers. --MASEM (t) 09:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- That explanation follows the Feist v. Rural line of reasoning, and is generally correct. However, the decision there isn't absolute—for example, fair use might be a valid reason to reproduce the material entirely. In that case, absent a well-developed policy on exactly what may be considered fair use of text on Wikipedia, we should discuss the proposed use (probably on the article's talk page). TheFeds 08:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fair use is relevant, because it sets an upper bound on what a text-appropriate application of the NFCC must look like. I agree that the NFCC apply, but I don't agree that they're well-developed with respect to text. We have a detailed procedure for dealing with non-free images, which includes a medium-specific policy, and for which consensus has developed around what fair use means in the context of that medium; that's not nearly so clear for text. (Furthermore, just look at the list of enforcement actions: they're all about files, despite being in the generic NFCC. The history of the NFCC as a policy for images before it was generic also bears this out.)
As to the question of brief quotation, the analogue in images is minimal extent of use. If the entire image is needed to serve the purpose, then we wouldn't crop it arbitrarily. The same could be argued for textual quotations, so I don't think we should presuppose that quoting an entire creative list is always forbidden. But I don't disagree in the slightest that a strong non-free content rationale would be beneficial. (And there, again, we don't even have a widely-accepted standard for what a text FUR should look like.)
As for the WMF's (official?) position, I wasn't aware of that input. (Is it documented? A link on the guideline page would be useful.) TheFeds 20:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fair use is relevant, because it sets an upper bound on what a text-appropriate application of the NFCC must look like. I agree that the NFCC apply, but I don't agree that they're well-developed with respect to text. We have a detailed procedure for dealing with non-free images, which includes a medium-specific policy, and for which consensus has developed around what fair use means in the context of that medium; that's not nearly so clear for text. (Furthermore, just look at the list of enforcement actions: they're all about files, despite being in the generic NFCC. The history of the NFCC as a policy for images before it was generic also bears this out.)
By the way, I admit ignorance as to the method by which the "Top 20 Countdown" is established. Is this an example of a creative list or an algorithmic list? If algorithmic, then I can see why you might be annoyed that I brought up fair use—without creativity, there's no copyright, and hence no need for fair use. TheFeds 20:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Third World Traveler: cleanup project
Thanks to Bobrayner for finding 100+ articles with copyright problems due to linking Third World Traveler. I created a list of articles affected and invite anyone/everyone to help restore citations/articles using other references or restoring citations without the offending URLs. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- A note: I don't think this is contributory infringement as mentioned on the linked page. (My further comments are here: User talk:Groupuscule/Third World Traveler.) Instead, this looks like a plagiarism problem—and I agree we should avoid citing plagiarizers. TheFeds 08:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
i dont belive that because i have seen differnt answers so if you would like go to www.facebook.com/molly melloy.and message me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.165.1 (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Copying Non-Free Images from He-Wikipedia
I'd like to use a non-free image, from Hebrew Wikipedia, on an English Wikipedia page. Specifically, I'm referring to using he:קובץ:Joshua_Zetler.jpg, on the Yehoshua Zettler page. Am I allowed to do this? If so, how should I do this?
Thank you, Inkbug (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- You would have to upload the image here at the English Wikipedia and provide a fair use rationale that states how this image meets our criteria for non-free use and why it is beneficial to the article. There are two templates {{Non-free use rationale biog}} and {{Non-free biog-pic}} that you can use on the file page with some additional input. Specifically it should be noted that the person is deceased and so a freely licensed image cannot be made any more. De728631 (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Question about non-free content use on a specific page
The article Nude photography contains the copyrighted image File:Nude (1936) - Edward Weston.jpg. I am concerned that this use of that image does not meet the non-free content criteria. (This is not its only use, so I haven't considered proposing it for deletion.) Is there a centralized location to obtain further opinions, or is the local discussion on the article's talk page the primary venue? Powers T 19:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nonfree content review is perfect for situations like this. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Question about the copyright status of an image
See my talk page. Maybe someone can help figuring out if the image is freely licensed or not? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Picture given to me for use
I have an image that was taken by my significant other to use for a wikipedia page, taken by him. It is not copyrighted, and he is okay with it's use on Wikipedia or anywhere else. What is this picture classified as and how can I upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandijo26 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- You can upload the image using the {{PD-release}} license but your significant other would have to send an email to the Wikimedia Foundation as described in WP:Consent. Please note though that waiving the copyright will also allow for commercial reuse of the image, as in "anywhere else". De728631 (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear Wiki team,
I am having trouble describing the media copyright for a photograph in an article.
The article is 'David Hale (economist)' and the photograph is File:David D. Hale.jpg.
This photo was provided to me directly by Hale's company following my request to them.
Can you please advise me on what steps I need to take to ensure it complies with Wiki policy.
Many thanks, Atlas255 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlas255 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ironic as it may seem, Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. Acceptable permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything. This is because Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content, and the content is in fact reused. If they are willing to grant acceptable permission, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. —teb728 t c 03:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
mughalprince muradbuksh
question no1 whateis the name of mughalprince muradbuksh son name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.240.232.200 (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
mughalprincemuradbuksh childrenname — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.240.232.200 (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- This page is for media copyright questions. Do you have a media copyright question. —teb728 t c 07:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this image copyrightable in the UK, despite its ineligibility in the United States? --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, this is in the public domain everywhere. Usually, there will be a comment in the template that says it only applies to a certain country if that is in fact the case. com:Commons:Village pump/copyright would be a better place for that question. Ryan Vesey 04:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Overwriting an existing non-free image with one that is not a different version of that image
Is overwriting an existing non-free image with a non-free image that is not a different version of that image an acceptable practice? I don't know of any guideline prohibiting it, but I fear it could lead to all kinds of trouble down the road. I'm asking because of recent changes to this page. Am I justified in objecting, or am I just being paranoid? Goodraise 22:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're correct. Unless presented with a good explanation of why this replacement is necessary, it should stand alone under a separate filename. After all, nothing says that there can be only one image. Instead, the issue of whether fair use rationales can be sustained for both of them comes down to the merits of those rationales in the context of the articles in which they're used. TheFeds 08:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Er, no. If the replacement is meant as a drop-in - with necessary changes to the rationale - you should overwrite the existing non-free, as to keep the total number of non-free media down. This prevents the need to delete the old, unwanted version. --MASEM (t) 08:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- By combining the two files under one file history, you would complicate the assessment of their copyright status, because the fair use rationale applies to all media uploaded under that name. (Thought experiment: if it did not, one could theoretically justify Wikipedia's hosting of infringing material by having a valid FUR for only the most recent image in the history.) By contrast, if you keep two separate files, the moment one becomes unsustainable per the NFCC, it gets speedily deleted without impinging on the other.
Alternatively, extraneous versions could be revision-deleted, but that doesn't address the issue of different users wanting to use each version independently. (If the images are split into two filenames, extraneous versions should be revision-deleted to maintain the applicability of the FURs to the content depicted.) TheFeds 09:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, if there was a second use of the image, then a separate file name makes sense, but we have the case here of one use of the image, and the replacement seems to be serving the same purpose but using updated art. Yes, the rationale (specifically source) needs to be updated but there's no concern that a second article will need to use the older version, and thus uploading over the image is perfectly fine and encouraged. --MASEM (t) 09:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- But the replaced non free image will have to be deleted as an unused non-free media. THis can be done by administrators. Use this template to mark them : {{subst:orfurrev}}. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- By combining the two files under one file history, you would complicate the assessment of their copyright status, because the fair use rationale applies to all media uploaded under that name. (Thought experiment: if it did not, one could theoretically justify Wikipedia's hosting of infringing material by having a valid FUR for only the most recent image in the history.) By contrast, if you keep two separate files, the moment one becomes unsustainable per the NFCC, it gets speedily deleted without impinging on the other.
- By the way, the rationale at Commons:Overwriting existing files may be instructive (though not directly binding here). TheFeds 01:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright on File:Office-15-screenshot.png
Hi. In the above screenshot, the license tag used was Template:Non-free Microsoft screenshot. However, the license currently states that in order to benefit from Microsoft's automatic permission grant, "you may not use screen shots of Microsoft product boot-up screens, opening screens, "splash screens," or screens from beta release products or other products that have not been commercially released." The screenshot is about a pre-release software. Is the tag alright, or should it use another tag instead? Pizza1016 (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've changed it to {{Non-free software screenshot}} which covers all copyrighted software. The fair use clause is still valid anyway. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Image taken in 1916 published later, PD?
The photograph on this page was taken on July 22, 1916 the day of the Preparedness Day Bombing. The image is exceptionally notable because it vindicates Thomas Mooney. The earliest published version of it that I have found is on the link I mentioned which was published in August 4, 1936 by someone other than the copyright owner. It writes that police suppressed the file for 20 years and that the August 4, 1936 appearance was the first time it was reproduced. Is the image in the Public Domain or must it wait another 13 years? Ryan Vesey 04:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- These are fun to track down, once in a while. The work you've linked to is The New Masses, vol. 20, no. 6 from August 4, 1936. The copyright notice is properly formed. The work is American and from the period in which registration and renewal were needed to maintain copyright. It was registered properly in 1936, but not renewed when it came due 28 years later, in 1964 (note its absence from [11] & [12]). This is also corroborated by its absence from this list. That means the magazine is in the public domain in the U.S. due to copyright expiration.
Here's the problem: in theory, the photograph could have been copyrighted separately, or published without consent of the copyright owner. In fact, in theory, the article could have also been copyrighted separately (e.g. if it was published elsewhere first). The former will be difficult to track down without knowing who the newsman was; the latter would be easier, but I haven't investigated that.
Instead of doing that, let's consider that this problem comes up all the time: works inside other works (like photos) are frequently treated on Wikipedia as if the overarching work's copyright status applies. Since we don't actually know the terms of licence, that may be a bad assumption. (U.S. government works are a great example of this: U.S. government papers are in the public domain w/r/t copyright, but the government might have licenced the constituent work for government republication only.) It is very improbable that we (or a court) would be able to decide whether or not the photographer 96 years ago licenced, assigned the rights to, registered, renewed or previously published the work, since he remains anonymous. It is less improbable, but still remarkably unlikely, that a plaintiff would have the information needed to prove standing and copyright status, and sue a re-user of the work.
So how hard a line are we actually willing to take on Wikipedia? Precedent seems to indicate that a preponderance of the evidence is enough when the risk of harm or suit is infinitesimal. But if you want to make 100% sure that the work is unencumbered by copyright, you're inherently out of luck for the vast majority of works. I vote to maintain a state of pragmatism: tag it as {{PD-US-not renewed}}. TheFeds 10:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just to be the devil's advocate for a second: what if the police seized the newsman's film, rather than asked for and received a print of the photo? That would fly in the face of consent, and indicate that the magazine had no licence to republish the image, because the police couldn't grant one for that which they didn't own. Under today's fair use law, the magazine would have no trouble republishing a newsworthy photo. But I don't think that would be valid as first publication under the 1909 Copyright Act. There are various annoying implications of that situation, but I trust you get the picture! TheFeds 10:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright questions and notability aside I would not use your current source for uploading the image to WP or Commons. The quality of the image is just too poor to be of any use in an article. De728631 (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was hoping to find someone who could try to improve the quality somewhat. Ryan Vesey 15:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much the Feds. Question, where do you go to figure out if copyright status was renewed? Ryan Vesey 15:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright questions and notability aside I would not use your current source for uploading the image to WP or Commons. The quality of the image is just too poor to be of any use in an article. De728631 (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just to be the devil's advocate for a second: what if the police seized the newsman's film, rather than asked for and received a print of the photo? That would fly in the face of consent, and indicate that the magazine had no licence to republish the image, because the police couldn't grant one for that which they didn't own. Under today's fair use law, the magazine would have no trouble republishing a newsworthy photo. But I don't think that would be valid as first publication under the 1909 Copyright Act. There are various annoying implications of that situation, but I trust you get the picture! TheFeds 10:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Author of image depicting Yutaka Taniyama
A while ago I uploaded the non-free image File:Yutaka Taniyama.png. I am not sure about the author of the image (which is the reason why I succeeded the author name in the rationale with a question mark). Can someone confirm that Shimura is indeed the author of the image? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
If you reply, please drop me note on my talkpage as otherwise I might forget to check back here for your reply. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Brazilian Supreme Court Question
Hello. I have just uploaded an image File:Min Celso de Mello.jpg and it was questioned about its copyrights. That picture was taken from a photographer from the Brazilian Supreme Court, and the Legislation states any content produced by a Brazilian public agent (as it seems the case) is to be considered as of public interest and fruition, proper credits granted. How would I proceed from here? Many thanks in advance. Etp01 (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- The supreme Court webpage that you linked in the permission field refers to the public nature of the informations. It does not say that copyrighted works are released from copyright. My impression is that that webpage refers to something like the Access to information act of 2011, which is something entirely different from the Copyright act of 1998. The type of works of the Brazilian public institutions that are excluded from copyright are works such as texts of laws, texts of court judgments, etc. Other types of works from governments are copyrighted. See also Commons:Template:PD-BrazilGov. Anyway, the Creative Commons BY 1.0 license that you put on the description page does not seem to be at the source and it looks like it comes from nowhere. I think how you might proceed is one of the following options: A) request the speedy deletion of this file with the Template:Db-f9, or B) do nothing and the file will be deleted in one week, or C) contact the copyright owner and obtain a free license from him. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I think I've actually mixed the Acts you have mentioned. I chose to proceed with the option C mentioned, sending an e-mail to the Court, and they replied, stating "(...) all photos in our image bank are public domain. We only ask the photographer's credits to be given. (...)" (the e-mail was originally sent in Portuguese, if you want I can reproduce it in full text). This sounds to me to meet the Attribution license category. In this case, which is the right way to upload this file to Wikipedia? Many thanks for your attention. Etp01 (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Help! From Someone Who is Lost trying to Tag A Photo
All help would be appreciated, truly.
I found this photo here: http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4974996
And uploaded it to Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martanda_Sydney_Tondaiman
I was kindly informed about copyright convention by SFan00 IMG and set about finding the relevant information.
The page, just under the photo in its original place, says: You may save or print this image for research and study. If you wish to use it for any other purposes, you must declare your Intention to Publish.
Clicking on the link at the end of that sentence brings one to this page: http://www.nla.gov.au/copyright-and-the-pictures-collection
Where I found the following:
Duration
The Australian Copyright Act defines a variety of periods of copyright protection. The main category that applies to the National Library's Pictures Collection is:
Life of creator plus 70 years, for
■Artistic works ■Photographs taken from 1 January 1955
Photographs taken before 1 January 1955 are all out of copyright.
The photo was taken in 1930, as per their own labeling of it.
Advice re this and the tags, with which I have little to no experience, would be greatly appreciated. I am not an everyday inhabitant of Wikipedia but still want to do this right.
Many thanks. Funambules (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Use {{Information}} and {{PD-Australia}}. Here an example: File:Buna.jpg. Goodraise 12:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It also needs a PD-1996 tag to explain why it is in the public domain in the United States. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Actually it seems we don't need to consider the URAA here since there is the bilateral Australia–US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) as described in this sheet by the Australian Copyright Council. The key year for this agreement is 2005. Prior to 2005, published works of Australian origin lost their copyright protection 50 years after the death of the creator.
- Funambules, the problem with your image might be though that the source site states it was previously unpublished [16] so the official copyright status is uncertain. I think it would be best to keep the current fair use rationale. De728631 (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think we've been through the AUSFTA point before. The text of the PDF is explicitly about "This information sheet with duration tables is for people who want to work out whether or not copyright has
- Funambules, the problem with your image might be though that the source site states it was previously unpublished [16] so the official copyright status is uncertain. I think it would be best to keep the current fair use rationale. De728631 (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
expired under Australian law." There is no question of that when asking about the URAA. The works affected by the AUSFTA are in the public domain in Australia. When the question of AUSFTA has returned anything to copyright, as addressed int he document, is all about the work's status in Australia and not the United States. I couldn't see anything in that document that addresses Australian works under United States law. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- my heartfelt thanks to everyone for all their help!! (and i hope this is the right way to do it! :)
95.246.173.57 (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
copyright options
I am trying to upload an image for a company who asked me to create a page for them, which means that they have given me the permission to use their logo. Do I still need to provide the license agreement or equivalent statement in order to upload the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espresso99 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 13 November 2012(UTC)
- We actually don’t need their permission to use the logo under our restrictive non-free use policy. One image is generally acceptable to identify the subject of an article. For a logo use the {{non-free logo}} tag, and for the required non-free use rationale you can use {{non-free use rationale logo}}. (Click on that link for the required and optional parameters).
- I am concerned, however, about your statement that they asked you to create a page for them. Please read WP:COI. We find from experience that many people who are asked to create articles for a subject do not have the required neutrality and write unacceptable articles, wasting their time and ours. —teb728 t c 07:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this logo copyrightable? I see just words and geometric shapes that resemble sunbeams. --George Ho (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there a different version of this photographic image? The copyright notice at the lower left-hand-corner indicated not only that the copyright belongs, technically, to the Press Association, but it is also the version specifically for use by the the Daily Mail. This is also clearly NOT of a low resolution. -- KC9TV 20:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I just uploaded this file for the new article Brookhart's Acid. It is taken from an academic journal, and thus not-free. Theoretically, a free version could be made, if someone took another crystal structure, and released it under a free license. I consider this unlikely to occur, as the crystal structure is already published. Alternately, someone could take the data of the coordinates (which I can supply, if needed), and make a new image with the proper program (which I lack). I'm unsure what the copyright status of such an image would be. Anyways, I would appreciate advice on whether the current image is acceptable, and if not, how I could go about getting an acceptable one. JDS Chem 444 Sp2012 (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that knowledge and data are not copyrightable, so a new diagram made with the data should be releasable under your license of choice. Chris857 (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- As Chris said, such a recreated image would be free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have neither the expertise nor the software to recreate such an image. Do you know any editors who might be able to help me? JDS Chem 444 Sp2012 (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think WikiProject Chemistry might have something, or you could try the graphics lab. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say that this is comparable to a road map. The underlying concept plainly isn't copyrightable (any modifications would make the diagram inaccurate), but there are decorative elements here that aren't necessary, such as the different colors in the cross-sections of the atoms. For this reason, I'd say that the present image isn't appropriate and should be tagged with {{rfu}}, since it's easily replaceable with the right knowledge and software. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- For some structures Template:PD-chem applies, but probably not to this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've recreated the image and deleted the file that is no longer covered by fair use. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have neither the expertise nor the software to recreate such an image. Do you know any editors who might be able to help me? JDS Chem 444 Sp2012 (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Nicholas Colasanto's weight loss
I'm doing my upcoming project User:George Ho/Cheers (season 3) (to be Cheers (season 3). I'm planning to capture a still image of the actor's weight loss from this clip. I wonder if it is fair use to make a picture of image to illustrate description. --George Ho (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- It does not really sound fair use to me. As you could explain this in words. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Weight loss can be explained in words, but a full understanding requires an image. I think it would be certainly fine to use this as fair use. Ryan Vesey 13:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, may I do that in Nicholas Colasanto article, as well? --George Ho (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm very uncomfortable with this. The key test is:
- Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?
- In that case, may I do that in Nicholas Colasanto article, as well? --George Ho (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Weight loss can be explained in words, but a full understanding requires an image. I think it would be certainly fine to use this as fair use. Ryan Vesey 13:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- That is not the same as:
- If the best text based description does not render an image redundant, you can use it
- I'm concerned about slippery slope or camel's nose, whichever is your favorite metaphor. One can almost always make an argument that an image will better portray a point than mere words, so I can concerned that this type of argument could eviscerate the concept of non-free image use.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Using a very strict argument of the first description, a non-free image could never be used. Every image can be described in words somehow. There is absolutely no way to use text to convey weight loss. It means something different to everybody so the only way to show it is with an image. Ryan Vesey 15:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the first point. However, I think the key word is "adequately". When a person is dead, and there is no free image, then describing what someone looks like is far from adequate. However, when you know what someone looks like, because you have a free image, and you want to convey that they've lost some weight, I think one can "adequately" convey this through text. One can imagine what the person might look like having lost some weight, while it isn't exact, I question whether it is critical to the understanding of the reader to see precisely how they looked after weight loss.
- Our goal is a free encyclopedia. I accept that we have limited exceptions in some cases. I understand why low resolution logos are allowed. I understand why non-free images of dead people are allowed, although I'd like to make sure efforts have been made to secure a suitable license before allowing a non-free image. However, when we have a free image of a subject, but don't happen to have a free image of the subject illustrating a particular point, I think we are going too far to lean on the argument that an image would be better. Can one portray weight loss completely accurately with text? Probably not. Can one do it adequately? Probably yes.
- Plus, there is a second part of the test. You've identify a non-free source portraying the weight loss. How do we know for sure that there is no free source? Have you contacted the owners of non-free sources to see if they would be willing to license the images? I've spent a fair bit of time over the past few months contacting schools to see if they would supply a photograph of a team and provide a free license. I've had some good luck, and have two more positive responses in my inbox to process when I get home, so I know that many people respond positively, understanding that providing a free license for an image to be used in Wikipedia is a net positive. I think that route should be tried first; if it succeeds, we don’t even have to debate the non-free use issue, but if it fails, I'm not yet persuaded that this situation qualifies for non-free use.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Using a very strict argument of the first description, a non-free image could never be used. Every image can be described in words somehow. There is absolutely no way to use text to convey weight loss. It means something different to everybody so the only way to show it is with an image. Ryan Vesey 15:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about slippery slope or camel's nose, whichever is your favorite metaphor. One can almost always make an argument that an image will better portray a point than mere words, so I can concerned that this type of argument could eviscerate the concept of non-free image use.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
What if I can capture one clip from first season and another from third and turn them into one? Would that substantially work, or is that still redundant? --George Ho (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Castmates noticed his weight loss," - if you have other sources where there was more indication of public discussion of his weight loss. something like "His weight loss was clearly visible by episode X, and viewers and gossip sites blah blah blah (source talking about appearance in episode X and coummunity reaction)" you would get what I would consider specific critical commentary about copyright image allowing
freefair use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)- "Fair use", you mean? --George Ho (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I tried finding sources that explain it and found none. I just found what the doctor said about the actor's worsened symptoms. If none are found, then "weight loss" would make the image unnecessary, correct? --George Ho (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Fair use", you mean? --George Ho (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Wrong license on image
File:Petoskey street.jpg has the wrong license. It is tagged cc-by-sa-2.5 but the source has CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. I have not used the fair use rationals, but from what I am reading it would fail the "no free equivalent", as the street/district is very much there. Should I tag it with the fair use rational then CSD#F7, or just the CSD#F7, or even Db-f3? Thundersnow 06:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have tagged it for deletion because the source licence is unacceptable to us and it would fail our fair-use policy specifically because a new image can easily be created and released freely. ww2censor (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Question about adding photo
I am trying to improve the entry for the Canadian band I Mother Earth. I've been adding citations for the entry and today uploaded a photo. I have the verbal permission of both the band and photographer to use the image but I need to know how to tag it appropriately. I'm new to editing here and am not sure what to do. The photo link is posted below. Any help is appreciated.
File:I Mother Earth at Commodore Ballroom in Vancouver.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inters88 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Are you Desiree Bellman-Morris? --Orange Mike | Talk 04:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- To begin with, Wikipedia does not accept permission only for use in one article in Wikipedia; acceptable permission must be one of several licenses that allow reuse for anything anywhere. See WP:COPYREQ for details of acceptable permission and how to handle it. The tag that you put on the file is the one that corresponds to the specific license the copyright owner granted. —teb728 t c 04:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this logo eligible for copyrights? I see an "M" handwritten. --George Ho (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- It does not appear to be eligible for copyrights. See File:NY Arrows logo.png. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the M-like scribble would be treated as a signature which is not copyrightable in the United States. (It wouldn't be copyrightable if it wasn't a signature either). Ryan Vesey 18:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Are these simple enough to qualify as {{PD-textlogo}} rather than {{Non-free logo}}? Useddenim (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call them ineligible in the Netherlands, the source country, as COM:TOO does not have the Netherlands section. Therefore, they are treated as non-free, so I prevented the image from appearing here. Nevertheless, I added {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} because these designs are not original enough to be copyrighted in the United States, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- So, is it necessary to have both {{Non-free logo}} and {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} on the two, or is just the latter sufficient? Useddenim (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Either way is fine, but I would recommend using both, just in case that events may affect one work, like court case or new law. One time, the URAA is still intact, and Commons was close to deleting ALL non-U.S. images. --George Ho (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- So, is it necessary to have both {{Non-free logo}} and {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} on the two, or is just the latter sufficient? Useddenim (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
And another one that may be over-protected
Useddenim (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- If it is tagged as non-free, per WP:NFCC, this image cannot be used outside. Also, we will treat this image as non-free until someone confirms that this logo is not eligible for copyrights. --George Ho (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
A single Rachel Maddow show as Copyright Violation on Frank L. VanderSloot
Please address a possible copyright violation at the above article on the Notice Board at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_single_Rachel_Maddow_show_as_RS_on_Frank_L._VanderSloot. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Neither page contains media; so there is no media copyright issue. —teb728 t c 00:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
So, I filed a PUF here about File:Checkmark.png and the main question is whether it would apply under {{PD-shape}}. I don't think so, but it closed with no consensus so I'm not sure. The current perms seem shady at best, so I'd like someone to check this out for me. Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- You may recall that I was the one who closed as no consensus. I know what I would have done if it were up to me (the file would be gone), but I couldn't read a consensus out of that discussion. Lacking the consensus to delete, however, I've gotten rid of the largest use of the file, which was in Template:WikiProject Articles for creation, replacing it with a similar image. That removes like 99% of the usage of this file.
- Lacking consensus to delete here, I would recommend moving this file to Commons, despite the doubts about the copyright status. Obviously, this image would never be allowed on here if it were nonfree, and so the idea is to let Commons deal with it, since if it's found to be not free, the only option is deletion. And if it gets deleted from Commons, so be it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- And so after sleeping on it, I changed my mind, and the file is up for deletion again, this time in FFD. My thought on it is that if the copyright status is an issue, we should just dump it, since we have plenty of other green checkmarks to pick from. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you, and I wish the discussion at PUF had been noticed more. I've voiced my opinion over at FFD to delete it. I'm also a developer at AfC, and that's actually where I found this. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- And so after sleeping on it, I changed my mind, and the file is up for deletion again, this time in FFD. My thought on it is that if the copyright status is an issue, we should just dump it, since we have plenty of other green checkmarks to pick from. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Canada's government copyright
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm fan of television series Glee and would love to upload this picture of actor Cory Monteith with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Can anybody help me with the copyright? I'm from the States and don't know of Canadian copyrights. What are the procedures? Thank you! Keeiither (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- According to this Canadian photos are generally copyright for 50 years pma unless they were taken before I January 1949 or are covered by Crown Copyright which subsists for 50 years. You are out of luck as there is nothing to show it is a freely licenced image nor is there anything specifically special about the photo that could not be described in prose. If you can persuade the copyright holder, who may actually be the photographer, to release the image under a free licence then we could use it but our OTRS Team would need to receive confirmation of their WP:CONSENT. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to understand some of the issues better. ww2censor (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This photo by me should be free for all uses, hiwever it is tagged that it is not licensed by me. I do not find my way around were I caan license this image. Any advise would be appreicated.
Shabib01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabib01 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please have a look at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses, pick one of the license templates from Creative Commons, Free Arts License or GNU, and insert the desired {{ }} template at the image's page below the description. You may also complete waive your copyrights and use {{PD-user}}. De728631 (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright infringement
Can I make tribute art about a sports team with like dates of their championships or super bowl victory's without using their team logo just their names like The Dallas Cowboys or New York Yankees with a photo of their most famous player or stadium or a drawing of the player. Would I have a problem with that? or do I need permission from the team or leagues?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.217.82 (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- While individual names that are simple would likely not be a problems if they could be considered to not have a copyright due to a low threshold of originality would be ok but any names based on complex logos and any images that are copyright would be a problem unless all elements are freely licenced. Anything you use that is copyright would need the permission of the copyright holder. ww2censor (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Ticket stub
I own a ticket stub for a tennis tournament held in 1969 (Wembley tournament). Can a scan of this be used to illustrate the tournament article? --Wolbo (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Licence for Google Translate audio file
Hello. I want to add an audio file from Google Translate for the prononciation of a few words. What copyright should I use when I'll post it ? (I'm searching for a good licence for Wikipedia, like "no commercial use" or something if there is. I can't find Google Translate TOS). Thank you. --Tigrul AlbMesaje 16:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's a pretty safe bet that such an audio file is Google's copyright and should not be uploaded to Wikipedia (just like Google Maps images). It would be preferable to record your own audio file and upload it to Commons under a free licence.--ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Floor plan
I am interested in creating an image of a building's floor plan, based off of this image. What copyrights exist on floor plans? The building was built in 1908, and it was designed by Paul Humphrey Macneil (1883–1964) [17]. Chris857 (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
How about?
If you send messages about image copyright information... Don't.
Example:
Thanks for uploading File:Longevity Escape Velocity.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
"We" *require* this information...?
Who is "We", and where's the reference link to such a "requirement", Mr. Online-censorship-opposed Joke bloke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedatik (talk • contribs) 03:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- We is the Wikipedia community. And the reference link to the requirement is Wikipedia:Image use policy which was provided in the message left on your talk page. Do you have any other questions? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
:File:John Lescroart.jpg
My image was loaded to this site without my permission, and the person doing so said they had right and said it was released into public domain. They, Sacramento Magazine, only had rights to use the image editorially, not the full copyright, and thus NO right to release it into public domain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Lescroart.jpg#file
How do I remove this image from wikipedia's database? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveadamsphotography (talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've tagged it for deletion as a copyright violation. An admin should be along soon to delete. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
photo copyright query...
I uploaded a photo for a page I created a month or so ago -- Jon Cohen (entrepreneur). The photo was taken by an employee of the company (Cornerstone Agency) whose job was to take photos like the one I used. When I uploaded it I vouched that it was the property of Cornerstone. I don't understand what further information I need to provide (see below message from Wikimail) Any help or clarification you could offer would be much appreciated!! Cklenfner (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)CklenfnerCklenfner (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
<message redacted for readability -- viewable at User talk:Cklenfner>
- With regards to File:Jon Cohen (entrepreneur).jpg there are a number of issues. The first is that we need to know who the actual copyright holder is. This is generally the photographer and not the subject, unless the copyright has been transferred by some legal contract. Next we need a message from the copyright holder telling us which free license they are releasing the image under. WP:CONSENT provides a template which covers all of the information we require as well as which email address for the copyright holder to send it to. Does that help clear things up some? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Some athletic logos - copyrightable?
I think I've just been staring at logos for too long, but any chance I can get some feedback as to which if any of these three logos are creative enough to be non-free as opposed to {{PD-textlogo}} or the like? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Boy, I'd say GramblingStateTigers is free for sure, Alcorn is probably free (it wouldn't be PD if it was from the UK), File:MVSU Wordmark.jpeg easily passes the threshold of originality, I'd call it non-free. Ryan Vesey 20:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Agree on above assessment. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I moved the middle one to Commons since it's a rather obvious one. No need to change any licensing on Wikipedia: it'll probably be deleted as F8 soon anyway. The other ones look more complex than the examples at Commons:COM:TOO#United States, so they are more dubious, I'd say. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks all. On second review I agree, Alcorn is borderline so it stays non-free to be on the safeside, and if there's an objection to me retagging the Wordmark as non-free it'll just go through PUF. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
MORE ABOUT A SPYROGERA
WHAT ARE SPYROGERA ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.7.2 (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong place to ask, but do you mean Spyro Gyra?--ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
How to tell if image is in public domain
Because I cannot find an obviously-free image of the old fountain of Cambridge Market Square, I think this image illustrates it well:
but I cannot tell if it's still under copyright. As I understand, under UK law, it becomes public domain 70 years after the death of the creator, but if he/she is anonymous, it's 70 years after the image's creation (1999 as the website lists that as 1929). Is that correct?
Without too much effort, how can a layman tell who the author is and when he/she died, or if he/she can be considered anonymous?
Thanks, cmɢʟee☎✉ 19:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- if the old fountain no longer exists, you can make a fair use claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Smile-detection photographs
As far as I understand, the creator of a photograph is the person who triggers its capture, even if the camera belongs to someone else.
If I have a camera with smile-detection which triggers the shutter only when everyone is smiling, that implies that the last person to smile is the creator. How does one then prove which person smiled last?
cmɢʟee☎✉ 19:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're getting into questions of copyright law, and we don't give legal guidance, and I am not a lawyer; but I would argue that the photographer in the case of any such programmed equipment is the person who set up the program for this shot, the one who made the settings and set the parameters under which the shutter release is triggered. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh wow, for a second I thought you were arguing the programmer was the owner.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Changing "non-free" media status
I have uploaded an image and apparently I stated that it was "non-free" when in fact it is free - how do I change the status for the image? AlexAndrews (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is about File:Plan of Trinity College, Oxford Grounds.jpg, right? You said there that Alastair Johnson of Trinity College granted permission for the image's use in the Wikipedia article. If he granted permission only for use in Wikipedia, that is not enough. Since Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content, we require a free license, which allows reuse by anyone for anything. If he granted that such a free license, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle it.
- If he did grant such a free license, you can modify the file description page, changing the non-free tag to the free license tag for the specific license he granted, and replacing the non-free use rationale with an information block. —teb728 t c 23:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
uploading an image
I'm really confused about uploading an image to Wikipedia. I am trying to find an image to upload for a page I created for Solomon Asch, and they seem to be copyrighted when I just search on google for it. Can I e-mail the owner of the image and ask to use their image? It really doesn't matter what image it is. I just want some type of image with the article. What is the best way to go about this?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa1230 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Most images you find on the internet will be copyright to someone, so you can't use them. If you can determine who the copyright holder of an image is, and that may not be the owner of the image, you can ask them to release it under a free licence, which means that anyone can use it for anything. Restrictions, like non-commercial use or Wikipedia-only are no use to us either. You would need to have them verify their permission by emailing our OTRS team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT.
- I see that the subject Solomon Asch is deceased, so you may have a fair-use claim for the use of a copyright image but first you should make every attempt to find a freely licenced image. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page which should reduce your confusion. ww2censor (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissa1230 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! Can someone help me with the copyright status of http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01882/mahon_1882936b.jpg ? Thank you--94.65.26.121 (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- For whatever it may be worth, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/art-obituaries/8481701/Sir-Denis-Mahon.html (which is a much more helpful link than your raw jpg) credits the photo to “Sir Denis Mahon at the National Gallery in London. On the left is Guido Reni's 'Rape of Europa', which he had bought in 1945 for 85 guineas Photo: IAN JONES” So Ian Jones is the person to ask for a free license. —teb728 t c 22:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright status of graphs
I would like to write a Wikipedia article called "Ideological Leanings of the Supreme Court of the United States". In that article, I plan to reference the work of many scholars who have been calculating the ideological lean of the justices. This is a field of study that has grown enormously in the last decade and produced some very solid information. The scholarship includes:
Andrew D. Martin and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999." Political Analysis. 10:134-153. http://adm.wustl.edu/media/pdfs/pa02.pdf http://mqscores.wustl.edu/media/pa02.pdf
"Measuring Court Preferences, 1950 - 2011: Agendas, Polarity and Heterogeneity," by Michael A. Bailey�, Department of Government and Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University, August, 2012 http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/baileyma/CourtPref_July2012.pdf
As part of this article, I would like to include graphs I have created in Excel of the data produced by Martin & Quinn and Bailey showing the change in ideological position of each justice over time. The graphs I have prepared are colorful, with one color for each of the Supreme Court justice seats, and showing the complex evolution of the Court over time (Martin & Quinn: terms beginning in September from 1937 to 2011; Bailey: calendar years from 1950 to 2011).
The data is publicly available and easily downloadable:
Martin and Quinn: http://mqscores.wustl.edu/measures.php Bailey: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/baileyma/Data/Data_Measuring1950to2011_June2012.htm
The Martin and Quinn data has already been displayed in one form in the New York Times:
"Supreme Court May Be Most Conservative in Modern History," by Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight, New York Times, March 29, 2012. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/supreme-court-may-be-most-conservative-in-modern-history/
I have several questions about doing this:
1. Is it ok for me to upload these graphs to Wikipedia? I have created the graphs and I'm happy to make them be public domain. But the data was created by these researchers and reflects their hard work. I will, of course, include a statement that says "Source data: " with their names and a link to the data so it is clear who created it.
2. Do I need to get permission from Martin & Quinn and Bailey before I do this? Or can I proceed without permission? I could send them a courtesy note afterwards (so they would understand if they got inquiries and so they could alert me as they update the data).
Please let me know if this is legally permissible and also what the etiquette is in such a situation. I would like to make this data widely accessible, but I don't want to offend anyone or do anything illegal.
Randy Schutt (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- It sounds like you have made up the presentation of the data yourself. And not copied someone else's graph. In that case you own the copyright and can release under public domain or CC-0 if you wish. No permission is needed from the source of the data. Te data itself cannot be copyrighted, just the presentation of it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Photos from Flickr
Are they free? I am asking this because there's a picture credited to Flickr of Justin Bieber receiving a medal from Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- some images on flickr are appropriate licensed. some are not. some claim to be appropriately licensed but are not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Look at the section "license" to the right of the photo. When it says "all rights reserved", as in this photo, it means that the photo is not free and does not have a license. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
This is the picture, can anybody help me find the copyright? Keeeith (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the answer above. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Image at Covance
File:Covance_Undercover_1.jpeg does not appear to meet the criteria for fair use, but as I am not familiar with the finer points of fair use here, I would appreciate other eyes. Thanks, a13ean (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Most of the fair use rationale is here, but not the bit that shows how it aids reader understanding. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Tag for a photograph
I would like to a photograph to a biographical article. The copyright for the photograph is held by another party, who has given permission to post the photograph on wikipedia, but would like to retain the copyright. The image serves two purposes: 1. a portrait of the individual in the article, 2. Connects the individual to an important historical person, who has a wikipedia article. No other free image substitute exists. What is the appropriate copyright tag template for this photograph? Henry Heydenryk, Jr. (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- (off topic) - i think that you mean to be editing under your User:Est1845 account. You should scramble the password of the HH Jr account so you don't get confused. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- If they only want to license this picture for Wikipedia, then we still use it under non-free criteria. It may be legal to upload a high resolution version for example, but it would not be possible for subsequent users, so we do not permit such a license only. Follow the non free use criteria if they are applicable. With the CC-BY-SA license however the other party still retains copyright, but has granted rights for others to use with attribution or modify it. The owner can still sell it or better quality version for use without attribution for example. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- NFCC #3 requires the lowest resolution possible for a non-free image. Ryan Vesey 20:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Is File:New old presto.JPG Free?
File:New old presto.JPG is tagged as PD-self, cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL. It is a reproduction of product packaging (orange juice cartons), even though the brand is defunct is the design work still copyrighted? Note that the image is flagged for transfer to Commons and this should not happen while this question remains open. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Its a picture of the genuine labels that are in my possession, its not a reproduction of any original design work but a genuine picture of these labels, one of which is over 25 years old. Please feel free to use my picture. Fantaboy 23:16, 26 November 2012 (CET)
- Actually, as I understand copyright law (and my understanding may not be correct), your photograph would probably be considered a derivative work of the label artwork. If it is (and I may be wrong) then both the labels might need to be usable under a free license or in the public domain, and I have no idea whether this would be the case or not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Also I guess File:Prestobag.jpg and File:Hintons.jpg might fall into the same category? Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this logo eligible for copyright in the UK and elsewhere? --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I do not believe even in the UK that would be considered sufficient, it's clearly just a typeface - no alterations done to the letters or anything. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Solati Trio
- I uploaded an image for which I don't know the correct copyright tag and would like some help figuring it out.
- Flyer for The Solati Trio
- I got this scan from one of the performers in the event and she doesn't know who originally created this but it does not have any copyright information anywhere. And I doubt anyone will care if I use it since it's only for informational purpose and not for profit by any means. How do I find the correct tag and information to put on the image so that it's accepted by Wikipidia?
- Another image I need to use on my article is this one:
- Solati Trio Group Photo
- And I also don't know if the copyright tag is correct.
- Cguibas (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- If the copyright is unknown and you cannot justify public domain, then it is unfree here. You can attempt to justify a non free use criterion or ten, but it can only be used on an article, must aid reader understanding, and not be replaceable amoungst other criteria. read WP:NFCC to see what it takes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Warship plans
Hi folks, I'm hoping this will be a simple one. I have found scanned plans of São Paulo, presumably made before construction (they are stamped with the constructors' seal). That would put the creation date somewhere between 1907 and 1910. Are they in the public domain, a.k.a. does that count as being published? Or are they more similar to artwork, which would need to be documented in a pre-1923/70+ years ago published work first? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, keeping the claims with respect to the country of origin and the US separate, with respect to the latter that would be insufficient by itself to constitute publication: "Publication has a technical meaning in copyright law. According to the statute, “Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.” Generally, publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first distributed to the public." (here). That link has some further details (which I haven't read, but we're some way from their definition as it stands; I'm guessing that we didn't open military plans to the public). So that leaves other avenues necessary - with the scant information you mention, any of those could be difficult. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, it was simple, just not in the way I wanted it to be. These plans were produced in the UK, but the first hurdle here is US law anyway. I will search for an earlier publication; I've only found the plans in a 1988 journal article and this 1998 book so far, so obviously those are far too late. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright infringement
Hello, We are the legal owners of the following image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Missoula_Panorama_2.jpg
The "Higgins Street Panorama" was photographed in 2005 and posted in our website MontanaPictures.Net http://www.montanapictures.net/missoula_montana_higgins.htm
The panorama was posted on Wiki by someone without our permission. Now the image is being used for commercial purposes on You Tube. (See link below) We insist the image be removed from Wiki. Thank you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRsMSZvyKPo&feature=plcp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithriver (talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- The image is actually over at Commons, but I have gone ahead and filed a copyvio report there for the image, based on this statement. (see [[18]]). --MASEM (t) 20:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Most images that had been uploaded by this uploader have been deleted for copyright violation. You may want to look at the few files that are still blue-linked in his log and see if they come from your website. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
UK Foreign and Commonwealth video screenshot
Hi, I'm looking for an image for Shadia Mansour.
This page [19] has this image. It's a screenshot from a Youtube Video produced the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is under a Crown Copyright. The page was produced by the Government Olympic Communication Newsroom: News and media resources for journalists covering London 2012. Can we use this image as it is consistent with the Open Government License ([20][21])? I know it's a small image and there's probably a better way to get a full screenshot for the video, but it would be a start and establish that the source is ok to use in general. Thanks! Ocaasi t | c 20:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would say yes, since http://goc2012.culture.gov.uk/crown-copyright/ clearly states "You may use and re-use the information featured on this website (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence." It doesn't often get more straightforward than that. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Verno! I will upload it. Ocaasi t | c 22:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted non-U.S. images that fall below threshold of US originality
According to WP:NFC, any non-U.S. copyrighted work may be copyrighted in the United States. Is that true? If so, should the category of non-U.S. images exist? --George Ho (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I believe that is a mistake with WP:NFC. URAA grants copyright status to works that weren't copyrighted in the US due to failure to meet formalities like not having a copyright notice, not being registered with the copyright office, or not being renewed. If it fails to meet the threshold of originality, copyright status will not be applied. Ryan Vesey 04:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- However, doesn't the Berne Convention maintain that the U.S. respects copyright applied in the country of origin, despite U.S. own copyright laws? That is, if something is validly copyrighted in its own country, doesn't U.S. law respect the original copyright? --Jayron32 04:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going off of [22] which states that US only respects the original copyright in the cases mentioned above. Ryan Vesey 05:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, your statement is exactly backward. The Berne Convention, as implemented by the US Congress, extends copyright protections in the US to foreign works only if an equivalent work published in the US by a US citizen would be eligible for copyright protection. The US extends no protections to foreign works when comparable domestic works would be copyright exempt. In other words, foreign nationals can get the same rights in US courts that US citizens would have, but no additional protections. Non-US images that fall below US standards of copyright are entitled to no copyright protection in the US. Dragons flight (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah. Thanks for clarifying. --Jayron32 07:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, may we change WP:NFC now? --George Ho (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific about which part of NFC has a problem? Dragons flight (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, may we change WP:NFC now? --George Ho (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah. Thanks for clarifying. --Jayron32 07:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- However, doesn't the Berne Convention maintain that the U.S. respects copyright applied in the country of origin, despite U.S. own copyright laws? That is, if something is validly copyrighted in its own country, doesn't U.S. law respect the original copyright? --Jayron32 04:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
From WP:NFC#In general: "Anything published in other countries and copyrighted there, is copyright in the United States." --George Ho (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- That line was first inserted into the page by this edit (with a slightly different wording). I agree that it looks like a mistake. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to follow through a bit, this discussion vindicates that category. Clearly if they are in copyright in the US they shouldn't be on the encyclopedia. Ergo, this category is a "Do not move to Commons" category of files that a re out of copyright in the US but in copyright in their source country. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- The line from this policy is now discussed at policy talk page. --George Ho (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
need help -- Clarifications on Copyright
Hi, I am not sure whether the screenshots of the Malwares like Winwebsec or some Ransomwares like (FBI pop up virus) are protected by Copyright. I have some some screenshots of Virus infections which are really usefull as educational tools. It can be used in wikipedia articles related to Computer Security. --RAT -.- Poke it 05:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- They would still be copyrighted, even if owner is unknown. Could be used under fair use on an article on that malware though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Image took from a film promotion event
I used to pro about copyright, but it was a long time ago. So, if my friend took an image of artist who join an film promotion event, and that image includes some posters of the film in background (like this), is that image a free image for Wikipedia?--Lê talk-contributions 08:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well your friend would have to release a free license and provide some evidence of that. Also for that image it should have the background poster cropped so as not to feature it, then its appearance is incidental to the two men. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Image from old film - restored
There is an image that I would like to use for an article - which could also be useful for another related article. This image is a still from a 1919 movie, and as such, should not be a copyvio. However, the film was formerly considered a "lost" film - a copy was found, and the film was "restored" and released. Presumably, the image is from the restored version.
My question is, in general, would a restored copy of a non-copyrighted (public domain) film be considered a derivative work, and would that mean that an image from said film could be copyrighted? - (I can provide specifics, depending on the answer to the general question). ~Thanks, ~Eric F:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- There's no great general answer since it depends entirely upon what was involved in the restoration. Specifically, how much creativity was involved (since in the U.S. sheer effort alone doesn't contribute to copyrightability). If it was something like a straightforward transfer from old technology (e.g. film) to new technology (e.g. digital storage), then it should still be PD. On the other hand, the Copyright Office has found that depending upon the method, the colorization of black-and-white films could be allow for copyrightable derivative works if they included "a certain minimum amount of individual creative human authorship". So if the restoration involved humans (not just computers) doing something like inbetweening to replace damaged segments of the film and rebalancing faded colors then it could very well be copyrighted. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, it looks as though I need to be specific. Since I am a non-registered editor, I am intending to request the following photo be uploaded, but wouldn't want anybody to go to the effort only to have it be unusable.
- This JPEG:[23] - from this site:[24] - taken from Fritz Lang's 1919 German film:[The Spiders (Die Spinnen)] - for use on "Early film history" part of 'In film and television' section of:[Cultural depictions of spiders] article (and possibly elsewhere). See also, perhaps: 2012 Kino Classics DVD edition ~ E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Is this okay so far, for the Wikipedia:Files_for_upload request? How should the other fields be completed?
|
Description: Image from The Spiders (film) by Fritz Lang, 1919 (Weimar Republic) Production: Decla-Bioscop AG; Decla-Film-Gesellschaft Holz & Co.
URL: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/reviews/277/1331444669_3.png License: {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1923. Link To License Information: N/A (public domain) Author/Copyright Holder's Name: N/A (public domain) Article To Be Used On/Reason For Upload: Cultural depictions of spiders / to illustrate depiction of spiders in early film history, as an example relating to film mentioned 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC) |
_-_Edward_Weston.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![18:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2012/November#c-Shabib01-2012-11-18T18:40:00.000Z-File:Main_Building_and_extention_of_"Firma_Gustav_Baumhoefer".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Missoula_Panorama_2.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/reviews/277/1331444669_3.png){kind=link}
- So from some research I found that as part of the restoration effort Spiders was tinted using "Lang's own instructions for color tinting", so there was at least some creative effort involved there. It certainly seems likely that the restored version is still in the public domain since it wasn't fully colorized, but it's not guaranteed. Generally we err on the side of caution when there's some doubt, but I don't know how much of a question is really raised in this case. <shrug>
- At the very least, however, you ought to remove the "|pdsource=yes" parameter from the license tag you posted, because Lang's work in Germany is still copyrighted for a long time yet, so it can't be uploaded to Commons. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks! (I removed "|pdsource=yes") ~Eric F:74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC) I guess the fact that the "Weimar Republic" no longer exists doesn't make any difference (?). Modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Does this image need a fair use rationale? I removed it because it is tagged {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and as I understand it fair-use rationales are only required if the image is copyrighted in the US, but the editor who restored it believes it needs a fair-use rationale for the UK (the source country) as it may be copyrighted there. January (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- No fair use rationale is needed. It is a free image in the United States which en.wiki goes off of. There was a bit of confusion a bit higher on the page about URAA's relationship to threshold of originality, but that has been resolved. I've removed the FUR. Ryan Vesey 21:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- January uploaded a newer version, which came from the Commons copy (before it got deleted there). I wonder if the newer version is true image of the album cover. --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)