Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/December

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wendy Carlos

Hey, what category would a portrait of a live artist, in this case, Wendy Carlos, go when uploading the file? It is copyrighted, and the copyright is attributed to Carlos herself. [1] Katastasi (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 02:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As you see on the image and noted, the image is copyright as all rights reserved so we cannot use it. You would have to get the copyright owner to give their permission by having them follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Otherwise you have to find a freely licenced image of her. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Local upload on English Wikipedia of images under Template:PD-US-1923-abroad

Hi everyone. I postd this query on the TeaHouse Help desk, but found this board later which may be a better place for it. Help appreciated.

I made a clutch of these uploads on my article start Facing the Modern: The Portrait in Vienna 1900, but now an experienced user has come on to my Talk page to say he tagged them for deletion on URAAA revival.

But I thought pre-1923 was an absolute determiner of PD in USA.

Am I wrong in this? The Help files don't indicate that URAA overrides and I went through the interactive guide I found on the help files that confirmed their PD status. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. The URAA restored copyright on some works, but it did not restore the copyright for any work that was first published before 1923. I'll comment at those deletion discussions. – Quadell (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Quadell. Sets my mind at rest. I invested a lot of time on those uploads! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

systemBuilder

I added a picture that is a subset of another picture from wikipedia commons (PLATO IV Keyboard), and your 'bot complained about it. I don't know what I could do other than say, "This is a work derived from something that is already on wikipedia". I don't know how to make your 'bot happy. SystemBuilder (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Just ignore the message. Everything involved in the image is public domain. However you may wish to fill out the author in the template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I have filled that now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Image Use Policy Question

I am creating a wikipedia page for a company that I work for. We own the rights to several images, a few of which we were hoping to use on the page, although we did not personally take the images. Is this acceptable per wikipedia's policy? The images are of architectural structures that our company built. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaitlinGraham (talk • contribs) 16:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You will have to follow the procedure at WP:PERMIT sending the email to show that permission for free use really is granted and that you are authorised to release the copyright on behalf of the company. Are the buildings in a place that has freedom of panorama? A builder may not own the copyright on the structure if there is no freedom, so another possible issue to sort out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You should also be aware that you have a conflict of interest so you should read WP:COI fully and perhaps should let others write about the company if it is notable. Either way whatever you might write should only be from an encyclopaedic and neutral point of view. ww2censor (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Graeme, that's helpful. Ww2censor, I have written everything sourcing only major publications and maintained a neutral tone; my goal here is not for marketing purposes. Thanks. CaitlinGraham (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Replacing copyrighted photo with another copyrighted photo

Under what conditions is it permissible to replace a copyrighted photo of a deceased person with another (better) copyrighted photo? Specifics: old, new --NeilN talk to me 20:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Assuming we're talking that both before and after images are non-free and individually would satisfy NFCC criteria if used as the identifying image of the person, then there's really no reason not to use the better photograph (the only case I could think of where there may be a distinction is if one photograph is a year away from being out-of-copyright while the other is several years away, I would stick with the one that's closer to going out of copyright and becoming a free image). Now in your specific case, there is a problem with image #2 is that it fails NFCC - we have no clear idea who the photographer or published source is, and we would not be able to use that here. If that can be corrected, then it seems to make sense to use that image. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you MASEM. I've asked the editor adding the photo to join the discussion here. Assuming the NFCC issues can be worked out with the new photo, should the old photo be deleted? --NeilN talk to me 21:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Double check to make sure it's not being used anywhere else (I didn't think it was) and then yes, it should be sent to FFD as an orphaned image. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
If it's non-free and unused it can be tagged for speedy deletion under CSD#F5. NtheP (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Diagram from Jacobi's book

File:Persona.svg is from Jacobi's book, most recent copyright 1973, and thus would not normally be out of copyright until 2043. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcp (talk • contribs) 20:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that a similar image with the same information is in Jacobi's book? Or that the images are completely identical? – Quadell (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Working on the assumption that at minimum the figure is similar, if not exactly, what was in Jacobi's book, recreating it in SVG is likely not a copyright issue since the graphic details are below the threshold of originality (The concepts behind it are original, and thus the figure absolutely needs a citation to show where it was based on). --MASEM (t) 02:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The Google translation of the relevant part of the file description says "No exact reproduction, is loosely based on: Jacobi, Jolanda: The psychology of CG Young, An introduction to the whole work, with a foreword by CG Jung. Fischer Taschenbuch, Frankfurt March 1987, page 37". Thincat (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Images

Hi, would the copyright on Mappin & Webb Advert from 1901 have expired and can it be used? Also 19th century pictures from here. Thanks.Noodleki (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Any image published before 1923 is considered to be in the public domain (i.e., not copyrighted) in the United States, and can be uploaded to Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr

Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr appears to be out of date. Flickr has changed their site so that the BY, SA, NC and ND symbols are not visible on an image description page. All I'm seeing is "(C) Some rights reserved", which isn't even a clickable link to a particular license explanation. Where are the image's actual license visible there now? --Geniac (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

When you say that Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr appears to be out of date, what exactly do you mean? All the links appear to work fine. For an individual Flickr image, look down a bit on the right side where you will find a heading "Additional info" below which is the licence detail. Hover your mouse over either over the words "Some rights reserved" or over the symbols, which can be any of the ones you mention above and yes, they are clickable, to see the link info for the licence selected. For instance, this has a ND + NC licence and the symbols are also right there for you to see, or click through to the Creative Commons licence page. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Oddly enough to me (wither logged in or not) the photo linked to by Ww2censor only shows a non-clickable Some rights reserved (under the info-pane)... I'm using Firefox 25.0.1 under OS X 10.9. --Heb (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Might be relevant to add, that this was when using the new experience. Switching back to the old experience showed me the "old" CC symbols and clickable link. --Heb (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm also using Firefox 25.0.1 but with Mac 10.8.5, so maybe it is a Mac OS 10.9 thing. I suggest you next try using a different browser and see if you still have the problem, is so go to a different computer, if you can, and try that. I don't know anything about being able to switch back to the old experience. Where can you do that because the new experience is truly awful, takes way too long to load pages of those larger format images and is really painful to search when reviewing images uploaded here or on the commons. I preferred the small thumbnails which allows the user to decide if they want to see a larger image. ww2censor (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
+1. The new format of Flickr is really painful. With my OS and browser, it messes other things, but at least it shows the licensing terms. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Um, flickr still looks the same to me (showing the various symbols). Chris857 (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok... the problem was I was using the "new experience", which I didn't know existed. In the bottom left, I clicked the "Opt-out & Feedback" button then chose "Go back to the old experience" on the popup. Yes, maybe a mention of this should be included at Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr. --Geniac (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That option is not available on any Flickr page I go to. I would love to find it. ww2censor (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Whenever I open any photo in the new experience I get a blue, rounded rectangle in the lower left corner with the following white text Opt-out & Feedback. Click that and I get three choices: Feedback, FAQs and Go back to the old experience. --Heb (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I found that button but I think you misunderstand my basic Flickr complaint. I hate the large images in photostreams because the images are too big for quick reviews, usually 3 or 4 across a screen and as you page down it keeps adding more images at this large size on subsequent pages. Previously the images were real thumbnails 6 or 7 across IIRC, a bit like this page without the text column on the right, and you decided to request more pages of images instead of being given no options. Thanks anyway ww2censor (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Is not the logo of Heritage Malta too simple for a copyright?

I have seen in some occasion that a design mainly based in text is included in Commons labelled as too simple to be awarded a copyright. Shouldn't it be the case of File:Heritage Malta Logo.jpg? --Error (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm 90% sure yes though it does, as the only "original" aspect is the double-spoked H. In the US this would clearly be under but in some countries this might be considered original (like the UK). I do not know what Malta's would be. --MASEM (t) 03:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The H with stroke is a letter found only in the Maltese alphabet. It has probably been chosen for "Malteseness" but it is just a letter. --Error (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Then it is just fonts, and thus uncopyrightable anywhere in the world. Commons it can go as PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Lilactimeross.jpg

Is this title page still copyrighted? The last music arranger died in the 1950s or 1970s. --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well... If it were first published in London in 1923, and if the last author died in 1950, then I think it would have still been under copyright in England in 1996, so the U.S. would consider it copyrighted until the end of 2017 (because of the URAA). But it appears that it was published both in London and simultaneously in the U.S., according to what the image shows ("London, New York, Sydney"). So in that case, it would have to have complied with U.S. formalities to be eligible for copyright extension. And my copyright records searches reveals that the copyright for Lilac Time was not renewed; nor was it for any of the accompanying songs or materials, except for the unrelated 1928 novelization.
So this might still be under copyright in the UK, and we shouldn't move it to Commons unless we know it's PD there. But I think it's PD in the U.S. – Quadell (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
There's also the possibility this may be considered uncopyrightable in the US as the page only consists of text and relatively simple shapes, failing the threshold of originality; this might not be the case in the UK where the threshold is much lower. However, I cannot say this 100% for sure. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, I tagged the image as unfree and added rationale. George Ho (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait, I found the music sheet from 1922: ebay. Zoom up the image and determine whether it's MCMXXII. George Ho (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

George, seller says it's 1922 "Arranged by G. H. Clutsam. Piano Solo. Chapel & Co., MXMXXII." We hope (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse Question

Please see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#OCLC image copyright -- Moxy (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there all again. Thanks for your input a pervious query of mine. That was really helpful.

This query is not in any sense whistleblowing, I just want to get as much of a handle as I can on copyright issues.

What's the score on a Commons images like this Edward Steichen (1878-1973), 1906, The Pond - Moonlight (not an especially good example of this print by the way)?

Bottom line is that this is in Commons on a pre-1923 US PD tag, but I thought that wasn't acceptable on Commons?

It's a Google Art Project image and predicating the reasonable (?) assumption that their servers are US based, then they're entitled to display it. Equally it would be allowed a local upload on the English Wikipedia, but not on Commons.

The image is credited to The J. Paul Getty Museum, famous copyright attack dogs. I can't imagine them giving up reproduction rights, while in any case what is at stake here is the artist's copyright.

Explanation appreciated. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons does indeed accept pre-1923 PD but it also requires the picture (in this case Steichen's photo) to be PD in the source country. In this case the source country also seems to be US so there is no additional requirement. Commons takes the view that no copyright subsists in the photographing for reproduction of a 2D work of art. Copyright law in third party countries is not regarded as relevant. Thincat (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and here's a link. Thincat (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, thanks very much for that. I had supposed the issue with Commons was that its servers are not necessarily based in the US. So presumably that's not so. But if that is so, that its servers are based in the US as with the English (US) Wikipedia, then why can't it allow US PD pre 1923 uploads which are still in artist's copyright in say the EU. What's the difference? Why is Commons stricter than Wikipedia if its servers are similarly based in the US? Thanks for the link. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
So far as I am aware, that is purely a matter of Commons policy, and it is not that they think they would be breaking the (US) law in hosting images of EU art which is still in artists' copyright in the EU. Because it sees itself as deliberately international, it is not becoming to evade source country law by hiding within the US borders. However, Commons do not care if a 2D reproduction has its separate copyright in the EU because they think that is unconscionable. Strictly, if you are in the EU, you should not upload copyright reproductions of PD EU art, but Commons suggests you get someone in the US to upload for you![2] Wikipedia, as you have found out, is only concerned with US copyright law! Thincat (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Thincat. Of course Commons could lock the images in questions to viewers outside the US. I think Wikipaintings does just that in respect of some of its images. But as I say I'm not advocating anything here. Just curious to know what the position in law is. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This Image

I have a question about the image I linked above, is the photo eligible for simple text, or is it copyright? Blurred Lines 23:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. Compare this to the current Oreo logo File:Oreocookielogo.jpg which was deleted off commons due to the complexity of the image. Basically, as there's an implied 3D effect going on, the aspects that would apply to photography (choice of lighting and shadows) enteres play here. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

T.R. Owen image

File:TROwen.jpg

My question is about the T.R. Owen on the right, but also applies to pictures in general that are not my property but which have been released by individuals or groups (in this case the South Wales Geologists' Association from its archives) for publication in WikiMedia Commons. This is mainly because the individuals in question are not keen on being an editor in Wikipedia and asked me to do the honours of publishing it. The owner for the T.R.Owen picture is Geraint Owen, current president for the SWGA, and permission was granted in a committee meeting held in November 2013. This image was uploaded before with what I assumed was the correct details, but it somehow disappeared, even though I did not see any delete messages or warnings thereof appear. I need advice on how handle this type of situation so that on this and future occasions, the entry is recognised as valid. MarnixR (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Geraint Owen is the photographer who took this photograph, or is a person who legally acquired the full copyright, and, in November 2013 during a meeting, that photographer or that full copyright owner issued a statement in the form of a CC-0 universal declaration? As explained on your talk page on Commons, please ask that person to confirm his status of photographer or full copyright owner and his universal declaration of release directly to Wikimedia through the procedure explained on the page Commons:Commons:OTRS. Then the photograph can be undeleted on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
You guys make my head hurt. What should really be a very simple transaction seems to become a labyrinth of legalese - still, I'll try and do as advised and hope it brings things to a happy conclusion :( MarnixR (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately some people upload images claiming they have permission from the copyright holder and when we dig deeper we discover this is untrue or we cannot verify their claim. We have to be cautious and therefore it is not that we mistrust what you say but simply ask that the copyright holder verify the permission they gave you. Sorry if that gives you a headache but the request is quite simple and easy to complete and the copyright holder does not have to become a Wikipedia editor. All their emails are dealt with privately by the OTRS team of volunteers. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The essential facts should be clear and easy to provide:
1- Identify the author of the photo.
2- If the legal copyright owner is different from the author, identify the reason.
3- Copyrights are released in writing and a release to the public is normally public. If, as the description page says, the author or actual copyright owner has issued an explicit CC-0 statement releasing his copyright in the photographic work, evidence can be provided; if that statement is not already publicly verifiable, the author/copyright owner can send a copy of it by e-mail to Wikimedia. Any author is certainly glad that this basic precaution is taken to check the terms of his donation before his assets are given away by other people.
-- Asclepias (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll see what I can do MarnixR (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive.org states [3] is open source, but there is a copyright notice from 2002 on the titlepage. What am I missing? A few of these images would be perfect for Wikipedia, but I don't want to upload them without being in the clear.CFCF (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Open source is not the same as public domain. My guess would be that the authors wanted people to be able to have free access to the book, but I wouldn't upload of its images. —howcheng {chat} 19:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't open source implying public domain? The article you linked states that at least... CFCF (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
A lot of people mean a lot of different things by "open source". Some might mean something similar to cc-by-nc, and if that's what the publishers mean, we can't use it. Others mean something similar to cc-by, and if that's what is meant, then maybe we can. But I can't find any information on what Archive.org means by "open source" in this particular case. In fact, the book's front matters says the following, which doesn't sound open at all: "All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher." I'd love to find out more about what Archive.org means here. – Quadell (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Where does open source say that it implies public domain? Open source, as traditionally understood, covers a lot of non-public domain licenses. Copyright notices are entirely reasonable on open source works, showing who owns rights not given away by the author.
In this case, this is in an open source section of Community Texts. Somebody uploaded it to Archive.org, but that doesn't mean that Archive.org has looked at. Given the looks of it, I vastly doubt that the uploader had any rights to the book; they didn't even bother to fill in the author's name or give it a description.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I ought to report the book so that archive.org doesn't risk legal action, and alternately if everything is correct they can help me. I thought archive.org didn't have that kind of upload feature, but seems I was wrong. There was only one image I wanted from that book anyway (for Appendix vermiformis), and I can probably find a better image elsewhere, I'll just have to search around a bit more. Thanks for your help! CFCF (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Being approved for access via archive.org doesn't imply a Wikipedia-compatible license. That's why you can't sell your own CDs of Grateful Dead performances you find in their audio section. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Bot to detect WP:NFCCP#10c failures?

Is there a bot, or similar, which looks for images that fail WP:NFCCP#10c? I ask because it's a common problem with soap opera characters that an image of the character (with a FUR for that character) gets applied to the actor page as well, without a second FUR being set out. I've just spotted that the file description page File:Genesis Walker.jpg has never had a FUR for Sian Reese-Williams, so I've reverted this edit. That edit was made three and a half months ago, which I think is too long to be left undetected. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I seem to remember that User:BetacommandBot did this. Chris857 (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
It might be useful to talk to Toshio Yamaguchi who has quite an interest in this specific issue. There has been some discussion about this but I don't remember where it is. Toshio Yamaguchi will know. ww2censor (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it used to be BCBot that did #10c, but since he's been long banned and likely won't be allow bot-operator permission if he chooses to return, we've not had a replacement bot to do this otherwise-mechanical task of tagging pages for #10c issues. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonfree posters for PD films

How integral is a film poster for a film article? When the film is in the public domain but the poster is still under copyright without license, do we keep the poster (saying that we have to include it, as it's sufficiently different from anything else), or do we remove it because a still from the film will suffice to replace it? This is related to Popeye the Sailor Meets Sindbad the Sailor, which according to the bottom of the article is somehow PD-US (presumably through failure to register or re-register or something like that), although File:Popeye Meets Sinbad.PNG is marked as nonfree. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That poster is not copyrighted. I don't see a © symbol on it, and it's unlikely the publishers registered the poster for copyright protection. Even if they did, no copyright of a poster under the name of the film was renewed, according to the sources at User:Quadell/copyright. I would be very surprised if any PD films have posters still under copyright. – Quadell (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The poster and the film are derivative works of Popeye and other recurring characters. You therefore have to determine whether the first appearances of those characters are in the public domain. Otherwise, both the film and the poster contain copyrighted content (the characters) and need to be treated as unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The comic strip that Popeye first appeared in was renewed for one strip and one strip only the year he appear, the first strip he appeared. Seems a bit chintzy, but so it goes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

File:So Random!.png

Does this image have simple text, and simple shapes, or is it copyright? Blurred Lines 03:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Disney logo at the top is certainly copyright, whatever the opinion on the rest of it. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
@Redrose64: That's impossible, because the Disney logo is similar to this image, in which this case has simple geometric text, so I'm not so sure that the Disney logo on the top is copyrighted. Blurred Lines 18:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
File:So Random!.png has, above the two symbols "@n", the word "Disney", in distinctive handwriting. File:TWDC Logo.svg consists of four words: "The Walt Disney Company", and in this, the word "Disney" is in precisely the same handwriting as File:TWDC Logo.svg. So, not impossible at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It's definitely US-PD due to uncopyrightability - the Disney logo (as shown) is in the PD given that it was based on Disney's signature (Which also can't be copyrighted), and a series of normal characters from random fonts isn't copyrightable either. It might be more trouble in places where the originality threshold is much lower (like the UK), but here we've a US company on our US servers, so no issue. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

10 EDITS ?

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY " 10 EDITS" FOR CONFIRMATION? KINDLY ELABORATE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhimanyu3in (talk • contribs) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to WP:AUTOCONFIRM? On English Wikipedia, after you have an account for four days and make ten edits, you are autoconfirmed. That means you can edit semi-protected pages, move pages, and a handful of other things. PS Typing in all-caps is generally interpreted as shouting. Chris857 (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Images from the page deleted, which are self owned

I uploaded images a month back on the page Balbir Singh, Sr. and now they are deleted. They are the self owned images and are part of the Autobiography which is public on the internet.

Please advise how to retrieve them back. Wikipedia page already has the link of page with autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkb1986 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@Pkb1986: I expect that you mean these five images - the links take you to the logs for each image, where the topmost entry gives the reason for deletion:
All were uploaded to commons:, not to Wikipedia, and you were informed on your talk page about these problems. Since you did not act on the message, the images were deleted after the statutory notice period. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Ownership of an image does not give you any rights over the copyright unless you were granted them by the copyright holder, so unless you can verify that please don't upload such images here or on the commons. There is still at least one image for which you have failed to provide verification that the copyright holder has given permission as indicated by the licence you added. ww2censor (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

CC-BY 4.0 compatibility?

On 25 November 2013, Creative Commons released version 4.0 of their license suite. Quite quickly, and importantly for Wikipedia, PLoS adopted it and used it to publish a Topic Page (of which I am an author). More details on Topic Pages can be found here or here, but basically they are peer-reviewed academic review papers designed to be co-published on Wikipedia. For this particular topic page, license compatibility may not be an issue, as the page was prepared on the PLoS wiki under a CC-BY 2.5 license, so that should be the original license and it should be compatible. However, it would be useful to know whether PLoS publishing future Topic Pages under CC-BY 4.0 will break license compatibility. As of now, it is not listed on WP:Compatible license. Could somebody in the know clarify whether CC-BY 4.0 is compatible with Wikipedia? -Kieran (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

As cc-by-4.0 and cc-by-sa-4.0 are both listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses and both also exist as templates here and on Commons I'm pretty certain they are acceptable licences although I admit I haven't seen anything substantive to that effect. NtheP (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Add, there are discussions at both meta:Wikimedia Forum#Creative Commons 4.0 licenses and commons commons:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/11#Creative Commons v4 licenses announced where there is general acceptance but at the moment it looks like the default remains the CC3 suite of licences. NtheP (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A very large number of U.S.-acceptable public domain images have been deleted over the years, including nine just today, based on what may be a few editors redefining U.S. copyright law. Images are continually being deleted based on premises which have no basis in U.S. copyright law. I asked about the difference on the Commons village pump last month, and an editor stated some of the differences:

Copyright registration doesn't exist in Europe and there is no such thing as "renewing" a copyright. A copyright notice has no legal meaning (except for old Polish photos . . .)

The differences are clear by comparing that explanation with U.S. law, which did require, before 1989, a copyright notice and formal registration. Therefore, for pre-1989 photos which did not comply, they automatically fell into the public domain. The term of a photo's copyright if it did not comply with U.S. copyright law is stated clearly:

None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities.

In other words, nothing needed to be done, whether in writing or expressed otherwise, for a photo to become part of the public domain. If someone can dispute this, that would be helpful. Because valuable images are continually being deleted, like this recent example, with rationales such as the following:

Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons.

That example rationale, having been now used for countless image deletions of what are clearly public domain images in the U.S., may be undermining U.S. law with new legal requirements. The result is that a WP reader of the English version can not use, copy, or even view a public domain image because of Europe's own restrictions, implying: if it's not free in Europe, then it can't be free outside of Europe. And that seems to contradict the definition given by the Commons: Wikimedia Commons is free. Everyone is allowed to copy, use and modify any files here freely. . . --Light show (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

    • In simple terms everything that was under copyright in Europe when the US and European countries joined some copyright agreement is under copyright in US and vice versa. Agathoclea (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
You forgot to mention that it's only for works after 1988: Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988. --Light show (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
No, not since 1996: Uruguay Round Agreements Act -- Jheald (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Light show you know the policies very well that verifiable evidence must be provided on way or another, and you sometimes fail to provide it. Now that you don't get too much satisfaction on the commons you are forum shopping here. Just get the policies changed if you don't like them and you feel you are right that verification is unnecessary. This is not the place for such a discussion. ww2censor (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Quite the opposite: Verification is necessary, under U.S. copyright law, to have copyright protection. Without it, it's PD, unless you can prove otherwise. --Light show (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
And, as I said you know full well that we require you to verify that an image is in the public domain too if you claim it is. ww2censor (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
You also know, full well, that that the existence of an old photo that was published without a copyright notice in the U.S. is prima facie "verification." You're just going in circles around a Eurocentric concept. An editor quoted above stated, "Copyright registration doesn't exist in Europe and there is no such thing as "renewing" a copyright. A copyright notice has no legal meaning." So I simply said OK, no more non-U.S. photos will be uploaded, which is too bad for non-U.S. artists of all sorts. But the U.S., to my understanding, is not part of Europe. Correct me if I'm wrong.--Light show (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
For the Suzanne Somers photo, you don't have a scan of the back of the photo, so you don't know if there was a copyright notice there. Thus, it's an unclear copyright status. For the 1965 British press photo, that falls into this category: 1923 through 1977 – Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996 (but see special cases) – 95 years after publication date. As 70 years have not even passed since the photo was published, it's not PD in the UK either, and thus it won't be PD in the US until 2061. —howcheng {chat} 01:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You're going way off topic. The tagging and deleting admins have little concern about what's on the reverse. For instance, all 11 photos deleted today were tagged under the rationale of not showing the reverse, and were deleted even after I said I could obtain a scan of the reverse. And for one of those, Clara Bow from the 1930s, it did show the reverse, making the tagger's rationale completely wrong. Yet it was still deleted with the same boilerplate Euro version of copyright. --Light show (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Your problem is likely that rightly or wrongly, you've earned a reputation. People aren't inclined to trust your uploads anymore because of your previous history. Commons admins (I'm one of them) don't like uncertainty. They want to be 100% sure that an image is public domain. If there's any reason to doubt it, then it gets deleted. —howcheng {chat} 04:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you want the Foundation to be put into legal problems because we made an unfounded assumption about a work being in the public domain and allowed for its free redistribution? There is a reason we require strict, crystal-clear proof of an image being in the public domain, not if its copyrighted (which is the default assumption unless proven otherwise). --MASEM (t) 02:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer crystal-clear honesty, which includes no longer pretending that WP or Commons is concerned about the Public Domain as a legal concept. It disregards U.S. copyright law with regards to Public Domain, yet presents the illusion of legal respect. WP requires editors use U.S. PD copyright tags for images, then simply ignores the very laws they quote and rely on, insisting instead on the very different, non-U.S., Eurocentric version. Prior to 1989, there is no assumption of copyright ownership in U.S. law, which clearly states the requirements to obtain copyright protection. --Light show (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
A typical example of this EU superiority attitude is User:We Hope's tag for Grace Kelly's photo, where they conclude, " IMHO, everything on the site should be thought of as non-PD unless it can be proven otherwise." Totally backward reasoning and not quite a "humble opinion." --Light show (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly how we have to operate. We need to make sure that a work in the public domain to call it free-as-in-speech, so that it meets the Foundation's definition, which is equivalent to this [4] as when is a work called free. If we make any assumptions on copyright that would otherwise fail that definition, we've failed the Foundation and they could get into legal trouble for that. Hence the need to be strict about proof of free images. If you can't prove beyond a doubt that something is in the public domain or uncopyrightable or released under a free license, it is non-free, period. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly, if the Precautionary principle still means anything: The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted. Otherwise, to give any editor the right to require strict proof, according to non-U.S. standards, means that even obvious publicity images such as this one, illogically get tagged and eventually deleted. U.S. photos keep getting tagged in apparent disbelief that any photo can ever have been intended to be public and free to view. --Light show (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
No, it is exactly right. You keep claiming that pub. photos from that period routinely were published without copyright notice; sure, that's a reasonable statement, but that doesn't affirm that every pub. photo lack such. And thus we have to assure that unless you can show the backside of the image that it is clear of any copyright markings, we have to start on the assumption it is not in the PD. Is it harsh? Yes, but that's our goal in developing free content, to assure the content is actually free. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
An absence of a copyright notice does not automatically imply that there is no copyright. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, true, though we are talking works that can be dated to when they were published and preceeding the 1978 date (where following, all works are assumed to have copyright unless otherwise stated be in an open license), which most of these pub. photos were from. In that case, we have to assure there's no (C) notice anywhere on the published work to assume PD. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not personally claiming anything, but am simply trying to point out that well-established U.S. law and legal experts consider actor publicity photos (headshots,) to have been "traditionally" not copyrighted. To assume the opposite is therefore not logical, harsh or not. @rose64, it actually does "imply" that it's not copyrighted, per copyright rules.--Light show (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes it does, we need 100% assurance of PD-nature, not the claim 99% of such images are typically PD and ergo applies to all images. As long as some images were marked with copyright even if a slim minority, we need evidence to positively place the image in the PD, because that risk it isn't in the 1% is not sufficient for protecting the Foundation from copyright issues. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The site the photo came from says the photos are not for commercial purposes. When something is really in the public domain, it has to be free for any and all purposes--re-read what Masem and Howcheng posted above. Ww2censor's comments above are also of note. You're trying to change the policies for public domain works on the projects to conform to what your opinion of PD is. Regardless of how many editors have said you're not right, you still insist your interpretation of PD is correct and everyone else is wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't make you right. The track record here and here says you've been wrong a lot. We hope (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A personal website that uploads PD film stills, which it also states they do not own, can say they don't want them to be used commercially, as that's not their purpose in displaying them. That's reasonable, but does not give them legal rights. As you know, I've even received their OK to use them in WP, which helps them display stills to a wider audience. As for trying to change WP policies, my goal is exactly the opposite, hoping simply to have WP editors understand and recognize U.S. copyright law, which even you continually use for licenses. Linking to my track record, considering they're mostly deletions tagged by you for typically erroneous reasons, such as promoting copyfraud, and gleefully deleted by Fastily, is not exactly neutral. --Light show (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Then they're fair use photos, not PD. Policies for the projects are just the opposite of what your opinion is--that all should be thought of as non-PD until proof is provided. Every one of the files was deleted by a non-involved third party admin, not always Fastily. We've been to this three ring circus of yours both here and at Commons more than once--the show is a waste of time which could be spent in positive contributions. Get the WMF to recognize your version of PD and then it becomes policy. We hope (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Take a typical tag like PD-Pre1978, where if an uploader can show "it was first published in the United States without copyright notice prior to 1978," then it's PD. If Dr.Macro states that they possess "original" publicity photos, which they do, without a copyright notice, which they confirmed, and is typical, and the photo is pre 1978, where's the confusion? You keep thinking I'm giving my "opinion," which is absurd. I'm just restating well-established U.S. law. The WMF already recognizes all of this which is why they expect uploaders to mostly use their U.S. copyright tags. But I fully recognize that it's probably hard for UK or EU uploaders to make sense of these laws when there are no copyright registrations and no copyright notices needed there. In the U.S. the rules and requirements are precise, and "opinion" is irrelevant. --Light show (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right-your opinion is absurd-despite the many editors who have tried explaining the WMF requirements to you. We hope (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Mass deletions

Noticed also that their bot even tagged dozens of photos I took myself, sourced as "own work" with me as author. Others were government photos or older than 1923. No discretion was used, and this was obviously related to that same editor blocking me a day earlier. I assume that's an example a weapon of mass deletion.
A survey of photos showed that the average one is being used in about five articles, which means that over 3,000 articles will have a photo deleted, with the majority being used as lead photos. --Light show (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

--Light show (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

All bot tags have been reverted. Although with Fastily's Commons block in place, there is no way to respond to any new tags placed by anyone for any reason. Hence, an image such as Grace Kelly, used as a lead or other image for 30 articles worldwide, will be deleted without the ability to reply. --Light show (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I uploaded File:TheSwordBloomingtonILNov2013.jpg today, which is from Flickr. I understand the copyright categories used on Flickr and have uploaded from there before. This file, however, has an unfree license, but it was found on the Google "labeled for reuse" search parameter provided as a template when articles are nominated for deletion. I don't know how to categorise it though, could you please help? Thanks. Andre666 (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

On the flickr page, it is labeled as CC-BY-NC-SA. Unfortunately, that NC (non-commercial) clause makes the image unsuitable for Wikipedia, because it isn't free enough. Chris857 (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Using figure from study

Hi,

I'd like to use a picture from this study (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627303001466) in an article, but I'm not sure how to do so in accordance with copyright law (or if I can do it at all). I'm pretty sure that it has a copyright, but is there a way to legally use it anyway? Thanks.

Rob Hurt (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The study is copyrighted, and we probably can't use any copyrighted images from the study. (Even if it's legal, it would likely violate our non-free content policy.) However, if you're referring to the MRI brain scans, I don't think we've ever come to a community decision on who (if anyone) holds the copyright to these. Usually, the photographer holds the copyright, but I don't think there is much case law on the applicability of copyright for medical imaging. – Quadell (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

use of Dictionary of National Biography

I see that we have a template for the DNB (Template:DNB). However, I see that User:MadmanBot is tagging possible copyright violations due to matches with the online copy, which claims a copyright of 2004. How feasible is it to claim to be using the ancient 1900 edition, rather than the present? Do we even want to, given its obsolescence? Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The DNB is entirely in the public domain, while the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) is copyrighted and non-free. It's perfectly fine to copy info from the DNB (1885-1912, not published by Oxford), and it's quite feasible—there are online versions here and here. Articles that use this text should not be deleted as copyright violations... but I have no idea whether it's useful to do so. The ODNB is another matter entirely, and articles that copy text from it are indeed copyvios. – Quadell (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians,

I would like to upload two pictures from WHO and UNFPA reports for VAW article, that are related to the topics of subsections and give visual information. However, I am not sure what type of tag I have to use. I would greatly appreciate your help and advice. Here are the links to the images:

1. Map showing prevalence of intimate partner violence by WHO region. PREVALENCE throughout the world will experience physical and/or sexual. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/violence/VAW_infographic.pdf OR http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/85239/1/9789241564625_eng.pdf

2. UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme on FGM. page 1. Map of Prevalence of FGM among African women aged 15-49. http://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/publications/2013/UNICEF-UNFPA%20Joint%20Programme%20AR_final_v14.pdf

You can leave me message on my talk page.

Thank you very much for your assistance! Dnigmonova (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Those images are copyrighted and replaceable, meaning that anyone could create a new map with the same information and release it under a free license. (The data is not copyrighted, but the images themselves are.) You, or anyone, could use one of our blank world maps and color-code it to contain the same information. But we can't use the ones copied-and-pasted from those reports. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnigmonova (talk • contribs) 23:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If this is really a Free Encyclopedia, then why is there even a concern about copyright? If copyright is a concern, then that defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia, especially a free one. Hasn't someone even considered the concept that free encyclopedias are copyright exempt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklemetti (talk • contribs) 19:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The content that it contains must also to be free, as in freely licenced which is why we do concern ourselves with the copyright status of material added to the encyclopaedia. If added media and text is not free then the encyclopaedia cannot be truly free. The aspiration is a for all content to be free though we do have some very specific non-free media exceptions. ww2censor (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Fluorescence microscope 1939 Carl Zeiss

Hello, can the image at page 185 of this book [1] be uploaded to Commons? As written in the image description, it comes from a Carl Zeiss catalogue from 1939. Thank you for information,--Vojtech.dostal (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Merely my opinion: If it was published in Europe first, it is likely out of copyright in Europe by now but still in copyright in the US (US is what matters here). If it was published in the US in 1939 it might be in or out of US copyright depending on the details of how the copyright was registered. If you don't have US details I expect the image would not be allowed because there is significant doubt. Thincat (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Rost, F. W. D. (1995). Fluorescence Microscopy. Cambridge University Press.

Tagging an image I took from WP and re-upload as content fork (edited, new name)

Again I ran into this frustrating experience. I downloaded an image from commons. I edited it, offline, into a new image (different content). I then wanted to upload it with a new filename. The frustration entered when I had to tag it for copyright situation.

Background: source file should be a WP file/media source page. Reusing that on WP itself should be trivial. I don't know if I did it right. Last example:

Why is there no radiobutton that allows me to say: I took it from WP, and pass-through the appropriate copyright notices (added source page URL below)? -DePiep (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

In the "source" section of the image description page, simply link to the image you used as a source, and mention that you made changes to it. Then name the creator of the source image, and release the new image under the same license as the old image. Does that make sense? – Quadell (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No (I understand these like these should be entered from somewhere into something). First I must pass the commons screen that asks: "your own work/not your own work". That's where I am lost already. -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
@DePiep: In your example, File:Periodic table (polyatomic).svg is the original work, and File:Talk, Periodic table (demo 1).svg is what is known as a derivative work. Since the original is on commons, the derivative work should be uploaded there too. At commons:Commons:Upload, there is an option a derivative work of one or several files from Commons; use that, and it will copy much information from the original, including the licensing. You select the original first, before selecting your derivative work to upload. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
When I want to upload to commons, I start with the "Upload file" menu, from this en:wiki. After choosing Commons Wizard (not local), that opens [5] for me. (After screen one asking for which file to upload, ok), screen two has two radiobuttons for copyrights, but none shows the text or link you mention. -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The link that I gave wasn't intended to be the Upload Wizard on Commons (which is a real pain to use, I've never actually succeeded in uploading anything by using it) but to the main upload screen, which bypasses the "wizard". I expect that your Commons preferences are set differently from mine. Try commons:Special:Upload, which I think is independent of preferences. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Your link showed & worked as you wrote ("derivativeFX"). It's just that I expect it to be in regular upload (won't be the only one). Not all those tricks to remember, for a job I do five times a year. Guess I'll have to take it to commons. -DePiep (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Need Advice re "Fair Use"

Hello. I would dearly love to use the image for sale on eBay at [6] in an article on John Hall Wheelock under "fair use" but am uncertain if it has ever been published, and will use another image if there's a chance the picture would be taken down. There's another, commonly-used image on the cover of his books on Amazon-- an example here [7] but it doesn't rock my world as much as the other does. And it makes sense to me if the Wikipedia isn't simply spitting out things a reader could easily find, but offers an additional image.

So-- I'm asking your advice on which picture to use-- which is the better choice from the standpoint of Wikipedia's need to adhere to the laws of intellectual property? I also know that I might be able to get his student picture from the Harvard archives and they are wonderful in regard to granting permission as long as it's credited, but it would be a picture of him at age 22, and such a thing (to my mind) is something that works best as an additional image when someone had a very long professional life, as this gentleman did. There are pictures of him on-line as a 90 year old, but it would be best, I think, to choose something from his middle years.

Thanks. Kathrynklos (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If there exists a photo of the poet that is in the public domain (i.e., whose copyright has expired), then that would be the best photo to use—and if there are multiple public-domain (PD) photos of the author, then you can use any of them you like. Unfortunately, if a PD photo of him exists, we probably can't use a non-free photo of him, due to Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Any photo first published before 1923 is automatically PD. Since he was born in 1886, any photo of him when he was 37 years old or younger must have been created before 1923; and since he was a published author by 1911, any such publicity-style photo could be assumed to have been published in that period as well.
The photo you link to may have been first published after 1923. If it's PD then we can absolutely use it, but if it's copyrighted then we probably can't. The relevant question is, was it first published with a © symbol on it? There obviously isn't a © symbol on the front of the photo. If there's not one on the back, then this photo is PD. Is there a way you can find out? If you e-mail the seller and ask if there's a copyright symbol on the back, and he/she confirms that there is not, then the image is PD and we can use it. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The eBay lot does show the reverse of the photo and there is no copyright notice on it. ww2censor (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
(I should look more carefully; it'll save me the need to type so much.)
Since this image was published in the U.S. before 1978 without compliance with copyright formalities, it is in the public domain. You can upload it and tag it {{PD-Pre1978}}. – Quadell (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: Be sure to also upload or at least link to the reverse of the image so that you can prove that no copyright notice was attached to it. If you don't upload it here, I would at least put it on an image host (like imgur.com) so that when it disappears from eBay, as it eventually will, then you still have the image available. —howcheng {chat} 18:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this response! I've learned a lot. The eBay image was watermarked by the seller so I may go ahead and spring for it... I could cut off the lower watermarked-part, but the entire image is really nice. I want to do the best I can when resurrecting the dead. Kathrynklos (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Dogecoin logo.png

File:Dogecoin logo.png is currently uploaded with a free license, stating that the copyright holder allows it to be used for any purpose. However, this image is a derivative work of a copyrighted image, and does not show any significant changes to grant separate copyright to the image's author, under United States copyright law. The image is derived from an image of a Shiba dog created by Kabosu, and merely adds some colour filter changes, superimposing a "D" in front, and placing the derived image within a circle.

A related image, File:Dogecoinwallet.jpg, also contains the aforementioned image within it, and is uploaded under a free license. Does this usage qualify as De minimis? --benlisquareT•C•E 01:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Both images should be deleted from Commons. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I've done a quick sweep over all "Doge"-related content on Commons and nominated them for deletion, not sure if I've missed any though.
These are the only four that I've found. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Australian tennis photo

Hi, can anyone tell me if [this photo] of Australian tennis player Edgar Moon is in the public domain? It was taken ca. 1930. The text below the photo states that "Fairfax Syndication" should be contacted but the copyright link (top right) leads to a page that clearly states, referring to the Australian Copyright Act, "Photographs taken before 1 January 1955 are all out of copyright.". If it is public domain what tag should be used? Thanks. --Wolbo (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Since it was taken c. 1930 in Australia, it entered the public domain around 1980 there. Since it was not simultaneously published in the U.S. and was PD in Australia in 1996, it is therefore also PD in the U.S. You can upload this image to Commons and tag it with {{PD-Australia}}. – Quadell (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
As it is also PD in the US it should also be tagged with {{PD-1996}} to indicate it's copyright status in the US. NtheP (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Good point. – Quadell (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply! There are a couple more tennis photos in the same collection from the same period so that's good news.--Wolbo (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Most of the time, photos taken and first published in Australia are PD in both Australia and the U.S. if they were created before 1946. (If they were taken between 1946 and 1955, they are PD in Australia, but probably not in the U.S., so we can't use them on Wikipedia.) – Quadell (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thx, that's useful info. I have uploaded a number of tennis photos before but those were either in the category of "published before 1922 in the US" or they were public domain tagged (on e.g. Europeana, BnF). As this is a different situation I wasn't certain what rule(s) applied. What confuses me somewhat is the message "Restrictions on publication apply." on the photo's info page. Is this not at odds with PD? I have now uploaded the photo. To be on the safe side could someone check if everything is entered correctly? --Wolbo (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Your upload looks correct. I don't know why nla.gov.au says "Restrictions on publication apply"; they could be referring to personality rights or Sui generis database rights, or they could be referring to the separate copyright some countries claim on new scans of old photographs (which the Wikimedia Foundation disputes), or they might just add that disclaimer in some situations where it doesn't actually apply. – Quadell (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:RusselSquarePlaneCoincidence.jpg

What is the staus of this file? Should I add/change any required information? Thanks! Etan J. Tal(talk) 11:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a non-free image that is not used in any article, so fails WP:NFCC#7 and I doubt you can really justify its use because a free image to illustrate a coincidence such as this could be made. ww2censor (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I would humbly ask a second opinion about that. Meanwhile, will it be OK to include it in the article? There is perhaps a slight chance for a discussion about a deletion, if any. Etan J. Tal(talk) 19:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I agree with ww2censor. In an article like coincidence, this image would just be showing an amusing example of a coincidence, and a free image could serve the same purpose. (A free image couldn't show this exact same coincidence, but it could show a different amusing coincidence.) Because a free image could serve the same purpose, it goes against Wikipedia policies to use a non-free image for that purpose. – Quadell (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for your explanations. Wishing you a happy new year I rest my case. Etan J. Tal(talk) 21:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Pan Am 103.jpg

I submitted this for deletion seeing as how it's owned by AFP, and as such seems to be ineligible for non-free use, as I described on the Talk Page. Since it's not my image, and I'm not a lawyer, whether an administrator is willing to enforce the rules is not my concern, but I'm curious to see how this process is supposed to work when an admin keeps an image. Isn't it supposed to be "closed", rather than blanking the delete template? Preferably with a better explanation of why it really is eligible for non-free use, and not the equivalent of "No admin is going to delete this and it has been 24 hours." It looks like a blatant violation of the rules, but I won't resubmit it (or anything else) for deletion if the Administrators are just going to pick and choose the instances where rules are enforced. Some explanation would be helpful. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You tagged the image for "speedy deletion", which did not happen. I think the best move would be to nominate it at WP:FFD so the community can discuss whether or not deletion is appropriate, and we can come to a consensus. – Quadell (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay. So the info I'm missing is that unfulfilled "speedy deletes" are only good for 24 hours or so. This makes sense. Geogene (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You added a {{db-badfairuse}} to the image and that is not a fully fledged image deletion discussion that are listed on a daily nomination page and requires it to be available for discussion normally for a least 7 days. What admin Nyttend did was remove the tag you added because it requires a full discussion and does not qualify as a speedy deletion. BTW, DBs don't get closed, the image get deleted or the tag removed. This would be a controversial speedy deletion so if you desire you should start a WP:FFD. ww2censor (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused because WP:FFD has a subsection called "What Not to List Here" which includes candidates for speedy deletion, blatant CV, and suspected CV. WP:F7 is, I thought, a speedy deletion tag to be used in specific cases of CV, including non-free use of news agencies imagery, as I contest that we have here. But I do think that community review is the best option from here if I choose to renominate it. Will it be controversial because of the subject matter, or because I'm wrong about WP:F7 and we actually can use non-free AP/Getty/AFP imagery? Geogene (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
It would be a blatant CV if someone claimed to have take the photo themselves and uploaded it. As it is, everyone agrees that AFP holds the copyright; the only question is whether our use is justified or not. That's not the sort of question we refer to as a "blatant copyright violation", so it's fine to list the image at FFD. – Quadell (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I have listed it at FFD. Thanks, Quadell and Ww2censor for explaining how things work! Geogene (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I have uploaded to Commons what I believe is a CC compatible but inferior image and used it in the article's infobox. I suppose someone will find a reason for deleting this image as well. Putting in article commentary on the AFP image might allow it to be used again under fair use. Thincat (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Great find Thincat. That new image is a very decent freely licenced replacement. There are more images and illustrations in that report that might be worth adding to the article to enhance some sections. ww2censor (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Good idea. I've now added another image. Thincat (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Obstetrics book

After a bit of discussion over at Talk:Childbirth I suggested images from this book [[8]], but would like to be entirely clear on the copyright situation of the images. They were licensed/ordered for the book, and are they also exempt from copyright along with the book, or does that depend on whether they were published prior to this book? My understanding is that the entire work (images and text) is public domain in this case. (No need to hurry this over the holidays, I wont be uploading any images before early January anyway.)CFCF (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That books was copyrighted in 1954, and lapsed into the public domain when the copyright was not renewed. For images first published in that book, their copyright renewal would be the same as for the book itself, since one © noticed covered the entire work. If the authors of the book were using a copyrighted image for which they did not hold the copyright, they would have to include a notice ("Image courtesy of so-in-so, copyright 1943" or whatever) at the image itself, or in a "table of illustrations". If no such separate copyright ownership is noted in the book itself, it's safe to assume that (a) the images were not copyrighted separately, and are therefore in the public domain, or (b) the images were already in the public domain at the time the book was published. – Quadell (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
That means that if the publisher bought the illustrations they are free now, which is great. Frank Netter is a real icon in medical illustration and to have some of his work for Wikipedia is great both for the article on him as well as for many medical articles, even if only on obstetrics. There are copyright notices for a number of photographies in the book, but I wasn't planning on using them anyway. Thanks for the help.CFCF (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I've uploaded File:Bookmiller 1954 176.png which I used on Childbirth, but it was removed. To be completely clear, does it matter if the images were published again independently from the book in question? CFCF (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
If the image was first published in "Textbook of obstetrics and obstetric nursing", and the only © notice covering the image in that publication is the general © at the front of the book, then the only way the copyright could have been renewed would be if the book's copyright was renewed. The book's copyright was not renewed, so the image lapsed into the public domain 28 years after its first publication. If the image was also published in 1960 or whenever, independently of the book, that would not affect the copyright status of the image at all. – Quadell (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Some of the images may not be novel to this book, and have been printed by CIBA prior to this release, does that mean that they are under copyright of that publication? If so the HathiTrust is in error and I will also need to contact them. CFCF (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it means they could be in error. If they were previously published in a pre-1923 book, or it a collection that was never copyrighted or whose copyright has expired, then there's no problem. But if the first publication is a work still under copyright, then this book may inadvertently include copyrighted images, I'm sad to say. – Quadell (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Originality of File:Ingrassia 3.jpg

The linked image is from a 16th century book, but has been slightly modified with arrows for the article in which it was featured (pubmed link in image description). My understanding is that such annotations do not constitute originality as per US-law. Is there any need to cut these features from the image? CFCF (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You're correct: the circles and arrows on the photographs are not complex or creative enough to create a new copyright. (Then again, the image might be improved by removing them, or finding a scan of the originals.) – Quadell (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Frank Netter

  • [9] The Ciba collection of medical illustrations : a compilation of pathological and anatomical paintings.

The CIBA collection included a number of illustrated texts issued in the middle of the 20th century which held illustrations by Frank Netter, who is known as one of the foremost medical illustrators of modern times. Currently Elsevier claims they hold the copyright of a very large set of images they call The Netter Collection of which individual images can be licensed, for a considerable fee.

Previously I was under the impression that this was immutable, and that the images would not be released until the year 2062, but looking through entries in the HathiTrust's database I found the above entry which I have linked. It points to a catalog entry of the CIBA books which have been digitized. One of these is freely available, indicating that it is in the public domain. Is this correct, and if so is there any possibility that the rest of the books are free as well? If they are free the HathiTrust have previously shown themselves willing to allow access, so that we can upload and use the material here on Wikipedia. CFCF (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Any of Netter's works first published after 1977 are clearly copyrighted, and will be until 2061. If any of his earlier works were published without notice, or had a copyright that was not renewed, then those could be in the public domain... but we'd have to have a reason to think so. Even if one book lapsed into the public domain due to a failure to renew copyright, that wouldn't affect any of his other books or drawings. – Quadell (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm getting rather active here on copyright questions. Concerning that book that is available or any of those in the same series (linked above), are they copyrighted, and how can I personally check if a copyright has been renewed? You mentioned access to some form of online-charter? CFCF (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Generally, http://www.copyright.gov/records/ but specifically for books I have used http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/ for those published between 1923 and 1963. I am none too experienced in these things so I have posted here partly to see if there are alternative suggestions. Thincat (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Just my opinion: It looks as if copyright wasn't renewed on the 1954 edition (or earlier) but it was on later editions. If so, any illustration lawfully in the 1954 edition without a specific notice should be public domain. Thincat (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I've struck this because I was looking at this book by Bookmiller, with illustrations by Netter. Not the book you linked to above. Thincat (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Here is the record I've found. Thincat (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
This 1948 edition looks like it is still in copyright. If so, illustrations it it won't be affected by what happened later. Unless later lack of permission invalidated the copyright??? Thincat (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
My helpfile at User:Quadell/copyright may be of use. – Quadell (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
That's very helpful indeed. What is troubling me is, if you find an illustration published in a book which has fallen out of copyright for lack of renewal, how can you tell that the illustration was not published earlier in a different book that is still in copyright? Here we can investigate but in many cases you would simply not know if there was anywhere to look. Thincat (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You can't know for sure, but it may help to keep in mind two things. One, individual images were almost never registered for copyright before 1978, so you're really only looking for the sort of publications that the publisher would bother to copyright (books, magazines, newspapers, etc.). And two, if the book publisher did not hold the copyright to a previously-published drawing, but published the older image anyway without a copyright notice for the drawing's original publication and year, then the book publisher violated the artist's copyright. And if the artist did not bother to prevent the publication of their work in an unauthorized way, then it is extremely unlikely that the artist bothered to renew the copyright 28 years after the first publication. – Quadell (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Twitter/Canadian govt. Picture Copyright?

Hi! What license would apply to this picture of Canadian PM Stephen J. Harper and deceased Canadian actor Cory Monteith?. The latter published the cropped picture that I linked in his Twitter. --Japanesehelper (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Who was the photographer? – Quadell (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Uploading picture sended from the man for i make a page

Hallo. I was made a page for the Italian-Bulgarian Rapper and TV personality Leo Bianchi week ago. Today he send me a message to my personal facebook, for saying thank you for that. He asked me can i upload the picture he send to me. So, my question is, what license to add? I will save it as "given by the owner", but what license to chose and what evidence to give? To save a picture of your chat or? K.belev (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is hard as you would need the subject to prove that he owned the copyright on the photo, and that he was granting a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Since the chances are that he does not own the copyright on the image, then it would not be proveable either. You would need to get a written permission from the photographer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

So even as he asked me to upload it i still need permission from the photographer. I will ask him to say to him girlfriend to send me an e-mail where it will be writen that she given me the rights to upload it. In that case what she should write in mail and then how i need to show it for evidence? K.belev (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The procedure is in WP:PERMIT photographer sends an email with the picture to the OTRS team. If you can take the picture yourself it is much simpler! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Uploading a file from airlines.net

How to upload a file from airlines.net if you have an email from the author/photographer saying that they allow you to upload it in wikipedia? Xtian06 (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The permission must be to grant a free license such as CC-BY-SA-3.0. Permisison to upload to Wikipedia is not enough. Then ask the photographer to send the email to the address in WP:PERMIT to prove it. You can try to forward the email, but then it depends if you have a good reputation. Make sure you get a correct license first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2013/December&oldid=1138542401"