Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2014/April

Please evaluate File:ToshinobuKubota.jpg

Good morning. I'm asking for an evaluation on this photo, File:ToshinobuKubota.jpg. Before uploading this picture, I made sure it was acceptable by Wikipedia terms. It has a "fair use in.." section, but I am receiving trouble from another user. When he put a template on the photo, it was given a deadline for when it would be kept or deleted. The date (March 31, 2014) has obviously passed and I assume it is now acceptable. I removed the template after the date passed but the editor who placed there has continued to re-add it. I tried to resolve this issue with him/her, but he(r) does not wish to cooperate. Thank you Wangkyu (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

File:ToshinobuKubota.jpg This image is not acceptable per WP:NFC UUI#1, as it seems reasonable that someone like him has enough public appearances so that a free image could be taken of him. The image is therefore in violation of WP:NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Policing as vandalism

An editor User:Werieth has twice vandalized Puerto Rico on stamps, then belatedly claiming the persons pictured are living. They are not living, all are dead, and in any case the images are of stamps related to Puerto Rico admissible by “fair use”, licensed as sourced at the time of upload. He did not assume good faith on my part at best. Although it says something if Roberto Clemente is so great and so often referred to in the present time that a drive by might believe he still lives.

Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the United States, and efforts to expunge modern evidence of it shown in USPS postal stamps violate the fundamental principle calling for neutrality. The POV that Puerto Rico should be independent by international law is WP:FRINGE, only 3% voted for it in 2012. Werith's unsourced efforts to remove any reference to the connection between Puerto Rico and the U.S. are simply vandalism. Werieth suggested rather than report the vandalism, his unexplained misbehavior should be discussed here first. So here I am. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ill make my comments here short. You need to stop making personal attacks. Calling enforcement of WP:NFCC vandalism when its not is a personal attack. Honestly the edits have nothing to do with any type of political affiliation. It was a fairly standard review of non-free media usage. The article appeared on my radar when it started using more than 4 non-free works. Often such media usage can be justified, however its often worth taking a look at the cases anyway as excessive non-free media is an issue. In this case I came across an article with a large amount of non-free media with almost zero discussion of the visual aspects of the works. One example is File:Julia de Burgos 2010 U.S. stamp.1.jpg the only reference is Julia de Burgos in the Literary Arts series, honored as a poet, issued 2010 the existence of a stamp does not come anywhere close to the justifications required by the non-free media policy, specifically #8. In the discussion on the talk page I noted that you could probably provide the needed material and be able to include 1-3 of the removed files. However until such time as the article requires the inclusion of those files they shouldnt be in the article as they are non-free. Werieth (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Why does the 1990 stamp File:Marin 1.JPG get to appear on Commons, while an earlier 1984 stamp File:Roberto Clemente 1984 U.S. stamp.1.jpg had to appear as non-free content? What's the issue here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

And what is weird is that the "non-free" files involved haven't been deleted or tagged for deletion. What is going on? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-free files are accepted when they meet the fair use and non-free content criteria. Such non-free files are not necessarily deleted immediately when they are removed from articles. A certain time can be left. You imagine the trouble if they had to be reuploaded and redeleted every ten minutes just because an article is in the middle of an edit disagreement between users. Those files are recent uploads. Better let the dust settle and see how the matter is resolved between the editors. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Stamps/Public domain#United States. If it is indeed a 1990 stamp, then the file is hosted on Commons on the grounds of a false statement on its description page, where it says 1976. You can request its deletion on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for that. It is indeed a 1990 stamp. And thanks also info about deleting non-free files. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It does seem 1990 is the correct date.[1] Thincat (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, its' Scott 2173 1986-1994 (as per your link). I've tagged it for deletion at Commons (sorry VirginiaHistorian ... I should think you would be allowed at least one of these files, but I expect having all of them fails the minimality criteria) Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you could cite the minimality criteria before nominating the stamps for deletion. Minimal usage only pertains to using a given image in more than one article. There are no restrictions on the number of these images on any given page. USPS stamp images are unique as non free content goes, as the USPS clearly says on its website that their stamps can be used for educational purposes. Since no one's interests have been compromised, which is really the biggest concern here in terms of getting Wikipedia into trouble, this should not even be an issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately Gwillhickers, you are incorrect on both issues. Minimal use refers to not using more than the minimal amount of non-free images in an article if less will suffice. Do please read WP:NFCC#3a again carefully because your interpretation makes no sense. Regarding the USPS fair-use exception you quote, you have been around here long enough to know well that, a), our non-free content policy is far stricter than US legal fair-use exception, so what USPS says actually has no bearing on the matter, and b), "educational purposes" permission means nothing here because it is also not acceptable to this wiki. We require free content, as in freely licenced and it must have permission for commercial use. ww2censor (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I support Gwill both issues. I do find "mininal usage" vexatious in the context of the number of such images allowed in an article. In an article about a contemporary artist, for example, as many are as needed to illustrate their opus should be allowed, as well as for iconic works and works that have otherwise attracted attention (in the saleroom for example) and images of details illustrating technique. There should be no hard and fast rules, the same philosophy regarding contemporary stamps. As for the second, I understand that Wikipedia maintains a stronger policy than that required by US law, but the purpose of that is presumably to protect it from litigation. When that issue of litigation doesn't arise, as plainly here, then I can't see where's the problem. That does strike me as the sort of red tape it's agreed Wikipedia is not. The philatelic community on Wikipedia should challenge this. I would support them. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, not a full reference work. We are not a work designed to fully document with visuals an artist's contributions - that's what books dedicated to an artist can do. So examples, not full collections, are reasonable. And no, the Foundation's Resolution is not a legal issue, it's to making the free content mission, which people dealing in contemporary works seem to forget too much. It is necessary red tape to meet one of the few rules demanded by the Foundation (the other two being BLP and copyright violations) to make sure our content is meeting the mission. --MASEM (t) 06:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding artists, isn't something already established in Wikipedia to the effect that every work of art in itself is scope for an article? Wikipedia's coverage of artists such as Leonardo da Vinci or Vincent van Gogh already approaches that of full catalogue raissonés, such plainly the ideal of their contributing editors. It would be an expensive coffee table book indeed that could match the coverage of many such artists as Wikipedia already provides. Regarding your we are an encyclopedia, not a full reference work, it's an imperfect test but Google finds no source where your mot mal is refracted, rather instead lighting on Wikipedia's own article about itself where it notes that it is "the largest and most popular general reference work", of which indeed one of its oft quoted strengths is that there are no limits to its potential coverage. As for the rest of it, you remind me not a little of those regents, creeps, you see in cult organisations who speak for the guru, the guru himself not reachable by ordinary devotees and not least because gurujee has totally lost it. All Hail The Foundation, wherever and whatever that actually is. Buggered if I can fathom it. Or even, after watching that slightly excellent World War Z film on telly the other night, these NFC forums not a little like that lab populated by zombies Brad has to negotiate to recover the vaccine that will save the world. Thus here you all are, spasmic and inert milling around ready to switch on at the slightest sniff of non-mission NFC. It's a real shame we have to run the gauntlet of you lot. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

On the issue of art and artists, if every piece of work by an artist is notable for a standalone article (per WP:N) then each work of art can have its own page to be shown; that's fine, but that's due to the focus on the art, making quite clear the artwork's use is right in line. Even in the case of long dead artists where all their known work is well past copyright terms but not all of them are notable, we at en.wiki would not host a page filled with just images of their art - that's a job for Commons that we'd link to. And the free content philosophy is the primary goal of the Foundation, not to create an encyclopedia - that's what a lot of contributors do not understand and mistake the idea that fair use is good enough. That's why it has to be enforced vigilantly to make sure that people are continuously reminded this is fair use but something a lot more stringent to encourage better creation of free content. If people feel like the Foundation's free content goal is getting in the way, they're free to take all the current content of en.wiki (its open like that) and start their own encyclopedia elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Policing as vandalism 2

• WW2censor: Please excuse me, but I have read the policy more times than I care to count. Here is how the minimal usage policy to which you refer reads:

3.a. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

How are you surmising that this amounts to something that says a stamp can't be used to show the stamp -- in an article about such stamps?? Esp since no other image can convey equivalent significant information. And the critical commentary isn't rocket science guys. All that need be said is that a stamp was issued, once upon a time, to honor a given place and/or person. Once again, the USPS clearly says on its website that their stamps can be used for educational purposes. Since no one's interests have been compromised, which is (or should be) our biggest concern here in terms of getting Wikipedia into trouble, this should not even be an issue.

• MASEM: Re: what is or isn't an encyclopedia, I will take such opinion perhaps a little more seriously as soon as Wikipedia is purged of all the articles about video games, tv shows, living nobodies, etc, etc. i.e.WP is not a tv guide; WP is not People magazine, etc. Also, I would like to see policy that reflects your thoughts about "free content philosophy".
• Coat of Many Colours: Regarding your thoughts. "Regarding artists, isn't something already established in Wikipedia to the effect that every work of art in itself is scope for an article? " Yes, indeed, and the same line extends for stamp images in articles about stamps. TheVirginiaHistorian has supplied stamp images about Puerto Rico for an article about Puerto Rico on stamps. (!) If there is an issue about 'critical commentary' this can be remedied very easily. Instead certain individuals just hop in their bulldozer plow through the article with no discussion before hand.
• Asclepias: I agree with your ideas here also: "Non-free files are accepted when they meet the fair use and non-free content criteria. Such non-free files are not necessarily deleted immediately when they are removed from articles." I'll take the idea one step further, this should have been discussed before some individual took it upon his/her self to not only delete the images from an article but to go so far and nominate them for deletion.
• Since WP is not threatened and no one's interests have been compromised, all we have here really is a couple of individuals, with most or a large portion of their edits in 'Talk', playing wiki-cop and for no other reason than to assert their particular opinion. i.e.opinion/ego wars. In the process, the philatelic capacity of Wikipedia has suffered miserably. More time and effort is given to opinionated bickering than is spent on creating and/or building philatelic articles. That, quite frankly, stinks. Let's try doing something constructive for a change. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Absolutely bullshit. We can be encyclopedic about a broad range of topics including contemporary ones, with the understanding that an encyclopedic is meant to be a summary work, not a fully detailed work. This is why indexing every possible image that fits in a category is far outside of WP's approach. No one has said that an article to explain how a certain event has been cataloged in stamps ins't appropriate, but indexing every stamp (even if free) is outside that purpose. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You're typically sniping at one item while ignoring all else here, and kindly keep the cussing out of the discussion. If the topic is specialized (i.e.Puerto Rico on Stamps) there's no policy that says someone can't include the few examples of such stamps in the article -- and you have yet to demonstrate, here also, that anyone has included "every stamp", not that this automatically amounts to anything. It's not like someone is trying to include every possible image about a broad subject, like flowers. Again, you seem to be reaching for reasons to justify your (quite) apparent self assumed authority over these matters. As no one's interests have been compromised, anywhere, that seems to be the logical explanation for your continued involvement with something that is only an issue with a couple of editors like yourself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There are examples on these pages - free examples. Using non-free as examples when free ones exist is violating WP:NFCC#1. If the only way to illustrate such a stamp topical page was by non-free stamps due to all stamps being copyrighted, then one, maybe two non-frees would be a representative sample (akin to how one sample is used over at Great Americans series. And yes, some of these articles are trying to include the image of every possible stamp that meets the topic (certainly the case for the Civil War commemorative issue). --MASEM (t) 21:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Policing as vandalism 3

Again, you misrepresent policy. NFC stamps were used to show NFC stamps. Free ones can't be used to illustrate NFC images. Hello? Also, there is nothing wrong with displaying "every possible stamp" if the subject is specialized. You need to show us the policy that says this can't be done, in no uncertain terms. As usual, your referrals have been generic at best with a lot of your own conjecture piled on top. In matters of opinion we should get a consensus of uninvolved editors, and given your long history in this conference you are clearly involved and seem to exhibit all the earmarks of territorial behavior. This is not your conference, and NFC images are not yours to delete at whim. They belong to everyone. If there is no clear policy violations and all we have is an opinion about a violation, (e.g. what is/isn't "critical commentary") a discussion should take place and a consensus established before any one individual takes it upon him/herself to make repeated and numerous deletions. You need to get used to the idea that your opinions are not policy around here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You have shown a clear lack of respect of the Foundation's free content mission and an understanding of how NFC use is meant to be minimized, and treat enforces as "Vandals" which is absolute bullshit, as well as personally attacking me. We are tasked by the Foundation to minimize non-free use. en.wiki has decided to use NFC (which was created before the Foundation's resolution and set the prime example of what an exception doctrine policy was to do), and you can review NFCC policy to find it hasn't changed in the past 6+ years - the language is nearly the same word for word and as well as the tend. We regularly delete non-free images that are not the discussion of critical commentary (which is generally defined as discussion sourced to secondary sources) as to enforce NFCC#8. If you can't say why the image on a stamp is important, the image of the stamp is not important to show, though documenting the stamp is clearly allowable. This is straight-forward application of NFCC policy and NFC guidelines as has been for years, and arguing this is a novel approach or the like is ignoring the history of its application. --MASEM (t) 01:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You have shown a clear contempt for the idea of consensus, and hence Wikipedia altogether, as you routinely delete images on the basis of your opinion without any discussion first. And kindly not confuse objections to your arrogant behavior and never ending conjecture with a lack of respect and understanding for the Foundation. Thank you. You are not the Foundation's dictator or any such person but have clearly acted as though you are. I can understand the concern for minimal usage of NFC -- to a point -- but not in the measure that you have taken upon yourself to practice and attempt to enforce. We have several times pointed out that USPS images are unique, that the USPS clearly allows their use and that doing so does not compromise anyone's interest, including WP's. That is the reason why there is NFC policy altogether, to minimize NFC usage, as is clearly outlined in the criteria. That is why there are discussions about 'critical commentary', etc. Yet you still treat USPS images as if their usage will compromise someone or effect some sort of harm to Wikipedia. I could further comb through your edit history and I'm sure I would find many more dozens of NFC images you have taken upon yourself to delete and in almost every case, based on your fuzzy opinions about 'critical commentary', 'understanding', etc, -- ideas that are often highly subjective and most often should be established on a per item and consensual basis before you routinely delete them. You need to come to terms with the idea that in matters of opinion you should discuss and seek consensus first before routinely deleting images and antagonizing other editors in such a reckless and arrogant manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You are getting too hung up on what the USPS says. As soon as they limit end use, then to the Foundation, they are non-free, and we give no special weight to how they have to be handled to meet the Resolution and NFC policy than any other image. And I'm not expressing opinion, I'm pointing out the standard practice when we encounter this type of image that has been in place for 6+ years and demonstrated by reviewing FFD archives. There's no consensus to achieve here because without anything else to be said about the stamps, they fail the policy and practice NFC. They're not even edge cases; I've spot-checked FFDs on stamps and these are universally deleted if the stamp isn't the subject of an article or has critical discussion about the stamp. You are far too much focused on the idea that NFC is a legal protection, when it is more about making and cultivating free content and minimizing non-free. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That critique depends on ignoring the fundamental nature of a topical article as a whole, versus a single stamp article. --- It calls for narrowing the focus to require all the information appropriate to a separate article on each stamp --- to be included in each topical article for all of the stamps named. That is as unreasonable a burden as requiring all the information in biography articles to be placed in American Civil War before an image of U.S. Grant is allowed.

Stamps which might not qualify for an article on their own may, in context of a topical article -- considering the whole subject --, may be appropriately pictured in the more general article, which is what I am trying to do, because visual information is processed differently than textual information. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you do recognize that not all stamps in the world can support a stand alone article, hence why you are creating topical articles, which is fine and there's no issue there itself - I doubt there's any question that the topic is valid and documenting how a place or event are commemorated on stamps. But you need to realize that because these aren't notable stamps in the first place (as defined by WP:N) that means the need to see these stamps is very low - you can prove they exist via sources and text and provide external links for the reader, if they need to see the stamp, can view it, but because there's little discussion about the stamp for it to not have its own article, the need to see it to identify it with the topical article is very very weak and fails the non-free criteria and minimal use. This is not singling out stamp articles - we don't allow the same on discographies, bibliographies, and the like. Unless one of two cases (for 99+% of non-free images) exist: that either the image is attached as the identifying image that brands a stand-alone topic (as in the breast cancer research stamp), or there is specific discussion about the image in question that requires visual representation to be clear (as in the case of that you have since provided for de Burgos, about how the stamp's design alludes to her poetry, which would be hard to envision without the stamp next to that text). That's the basic fact here - you can document every stamp that commemorates a topic, but you can't necessarily illustrate each one if that requires non-free imagery. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so in the case of Territories of the United States on stamps, free use stamps are available to illustrate Canal Zone, Cuba, Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. Two concerns:

• First, there are non-free images from "Flags of our Nation" series for five, modern territories including Guam, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. But the only need for a visual representation to represent all modern territories of the U.S. on stamps as I saw it was a) the flag stamp of Northern Marianas and b) the flag stamp of American Samoa otherwise these two territories cannot be accounted for. I was trying to limit the use of non-free stamps in the article as a deliberate editorial goal to meet NFCC policy. My reasoning was to choose only two non-free images to complete the visual representation of all Territories of the United States on stamps, a purpose of a topical philately article, Territories of the United States on stamps. The other three are referred to by text description only. But that rationale posted on the Talk page at the time of uploading was later rejected by an editor's arbitrary blanking of the two images without discussion on the Talk page, while there was an ongoing discussion here.

• Second, rather than entering into an unreasoning edit war, I simply uploaded more images of free-use stamps along with commentary and citations from the Smithsonian Institutes' National Postal Museum or USPS. But subsequent discussion elsewhere with Weieth suggested USPS has a partnership with Smithsonian Institution, therefore any analysis offered there is tainted by USG source, not allowable at Wikipedia. However USG governmental sources are widely accepted at Wikipedia, and Smithsonian Institute descriptive analysis of stamps is not tainted by partnership with USG any more than Harvard Business Review is dismissed because the university accepts government grants. They are not, or are they? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• TheVirginiaHistorian I never said that the NPM is an invalid source for wikipedia. What I stated is that it is a primary source due to the partnership with the USPS. The NPM is a good source for primary information, but not critical commentary which is needed for non-free media. Werieth (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Second question first: Going back to the de Burgos stamp, we are looking for secondary sources, which transform information. What is on the stamp, who drew it, when it was published/issued - that's primary information, secondary would be commentary on that information like you found for de Burgos about the image's evocation. Now, I disagree with Werieth that the USG/Smithsonian sources are a problem - they have conflict of interest issues that sources from them would not be sufficient for demonstrating notability of an individual stamp or series, but if they provide secondary information akin to the de Burgos stuff, that's okay for these topical articles to justify a non-free image.
• Now going to the first (and I'm going to argue that every case will be different), given that the Flags of the Nation have a common theme - the flag of that state or territory over a representative "background" that is representative of the area. Arguably this is going to be difficult to really justify an image since the flag and description of the background really doesn't need non-free representation. And yes, that leaves those two terrorities without images, but if that's the only two stamps that the USPS has issued for those territories, then I think we're sorta tied here; using non-free to "complete the set" , to speak, but without meeting NFCC, is really not appropriate. Now, I will offer a trick that I would be satisfied with, and this is if you can create an article similar to Great American series for Flags of our Nation to list out the various series and perhaps in a table describe the bg image for each. Then, like Great American series, you can choice an example to illustrate the list, and here I would chose one of the two territories missing here, which safely can be justified there. And then while the use is not as strong here (and may be challenged downstream at FAC or FLC), that same image could be used here, and you can link in to that article. Mind you, this is the edge case that I mention, and could be challenged by others. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Three further points.

1. Just for background information only, does the USPS copyright on each stamp end at 50 years after the issue? If that were so, as an historian, I would rest easier, while still pursuing use of the stamps in topical articles in the near term.

2. The notability of each stamp is conveyed not only by their widespread public usage, but also by their initiation by a Joint Resolution of Congress, which conveys a cultural import for each and every stamp in the context of a topical article. and

3. To my way of thinking, the inclusion of insular territories in "Flags of our Nation" by a Joint Resolution of Congress is an official statement that they are a part of the United States. Would a third party source making that observation pass the notability bar? That statement has been rejected before at Wikipedia, it cannot be made at United States, that the U.S. is a federal republic made up of 50 states, DC and five territories represented in Congress. It seems that in context of a topical philately article, such a reliable source would be significant enough to justify picturing all five images, were I to find it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

for 1 : Best I can tell from the law, it suggests that the copyright term is what ever all other copyrighted works get, which in the US is life of the artist (the person that did the image on the stamp for this) + 70 years.

for 2 : the fact that Congress has chosen to commemorate a person or event or other thing on a stamp is something that grants notability (per our WP:N) to the person/event/thing on the stamp, but not to the stamp itself. This is why the topical articles aren't an issue in terms of allowing them. But as the actual stamp, no, that only provides factual information that would neither support a stand-alone article nor the use of a stamp image with that information only.

for 3: To try to justify the territories as part of the United States by the issuing of stamps for the article United States is likely not a reliable-enough source to demonstrate that, which is probably why you've had problems before. But you can say that in these topic articles that Congress recognizes these territory by commemorating them on Stamps. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I've used primary USG sources of statutes, secondary State Department Manual and Executive Orders, scholarly political science and legal sources, a District Court holding for Puerto Rico and the federal circuit ruling upholding it. Insular territories are unincorporated only for tax purposes, they are incorporated for citizenship, three-branch self-rule, territorial representation in Congress, fundamental Constitutional protections under federal courts, Homeland Security, Environmental Protection, Transportation, etc. Others believe its all incorporated or its all unincorporated.

In topical philately articles after identifying stamp issues in text, then I would link to an image at NPM for visual information there, as Weieth suggests. The USPS online pages are taken down after a while. Did you know, auditors of the USPS are investigating the production overruns. In the Flags of our Nation series alone, three times the number of stamps were printed as were sold. Stamp sales projections for production runs have been the decision of one individual in one private company based on manual estimates made without any oversight or review at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars from USPS bottom line. Of course, that is from a government source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't really say what can be done on your sourcing issue with calling the territories out in the United States article. All I would say is just because stamps have it as such, that's a very weak source to affirm that. That issue is something beyond this discussion.

For the Flags of the Nation series, that's a start. You also potentially have things like this: [2] or [3] (criticism of some of the specific stamps in the series). --MASEM (t) 16:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is in one sense, only adverse publicity, critical analysis is not required to be negative, is it? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, when we say "critical analysis" we do not mean "negatively critical analysis", but being a critic in general (more in line with the phrase "critical thinking", which can focus on both the positive and negatives of a work. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Allow images previously disallowed because of URAA copyright restoration

I have raised a policy proposal at WP:VPPR#Allow images previously disallowed because of URAA copyright restoration Thincat (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

OTRS for photo of painting

I am sure this has been asked before, but I can't find the info. If uploading a third party photograph of a painting, from whom should OTRS permission be sought. The painter, the photographer, or both? Any examples? Thanks Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Permission is needed from the copyright holder and in case the painting was photographed by a person other than the painter, OTRS permission would normally be required from both the painter and the photographer. However, there might be exceptions to this. For example, if the photograph shows the whole image (and no surroundings) and the image was not photographed in a particularly creative way, then permission might only be required from the painter. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Might" is a flexible term :) But, it is as I thought. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Image question

I'm not sure what the process is for verifying copyright on here, but I have a concern about an image that I wanted to raise for verification. A user with no prior contribution history on either Commons or en: recently uploaded File:Marvin Martinez (Negra Westwood), Harmony Santana and Francisco Perez (left to right) at a exclusive LGBT event featuring Ivy Queen at Stage 48 NYC- 2014-04-06 07-54.jpg, which they assert on the description page as their own work — however, the image has a promotional logo watermarked in the bottom corner. Since absolutely anyone on earth could theoretically upload a copyrighted photo to Commons while falsely claiming to be the original copyright holder, that watermark in particular prevents me from being fully convinced that our copyright rules have been properly satisfied here. Could somebody check into this by whatever means you have at your disposal? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Well unless the uploader is Lorenzo Mollicone of Alchemy Imageworks as they have stated the photographer to be in the description, it's a copyvio and should be tagged as such on Commons. Nthep (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Iowa senate districts

Are Iowa senate districts fair use? [4] CTF83! 00:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The breakout of the districts is uncopyrightable data, though that specific image is copyrighted (or potentially copyrighted). You can ask the Map division of the Graphics Lab to help recreate it to avoid the copyright of that image. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! CTF83! 01:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Congressional District maps are available at each Congress in the Congressional Directory published by the Government Printing Office. Would that not be a free use source? Or even more so from National atlas.gov? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

They may or may not (I would suspect there is a previously published version out there), but even considering that there's a 100%-chance of a free version, we can use the opportunity to easily normalize the map to the style of maps created by the Graphics Lab. Even the linked document above is likely uncopyrightable (geographic data) but this just a matter of avoiding any possible question. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Is a picture of a 2D image copyright?

the original woodcut is from 1540s and so is obviously public domain. is this [5] picture of the woodcut copyright-able or is it free use? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Specifically as we're talking the impression from the woodcut, a 2D recreation of a 2D PD image as a slavish reproduction cannot have new copyright under US law. Be aware - but Commons does ignore this - that some in the UK would argue the act of digitizing old works is sufficient for copyright, but as noted, Commons and WMF have chosen to ignore this claim. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. There's a flourishing woodcut category at Commons. But if it were a modern impression there might be a question. I saw it being debated the other day but can't remember where. For example, modern impressions from old Japanese woodblocks are not uncommon and I would expect them to be copyrightable even in the US (thus there would be creative choices involved in choosing the inks for example). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And since I'm here, the National/Portrait Gallery UK debate (basically Commons stiffed us of some several thousands extremely high resolution and commercially valuable images) has a number of components, of which perhaps the most cogent and actionable relates to computer database protection law. I don't think it would be smart for a UK editor to upload UK images unless they're pretty anonymous. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be a picture of one of the original pressings on original parchment of the woodcut from back in the day complete with the folds in the paper, flaked ink and watermarks (as in stains and mold, not deliberate identification) and not a modern re-pressing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure it's fine. Another warning about images services such as the British Museum and other UK galleries (notably Tate): uploading their images (unless you've actually paid for global internet dissemination if that is possible) also unquestionably actionable in the UK (straightforward breach of contract). But uploading something you got off a webpage, as in this case, is a harmless enough hobby indulged by millions and unlikely to land you in the dock. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

USPS template

Is there an example of appropriate use of the USPS licensing template on Wikipedia? My recent uploads have all been deleted. All objections are met at Puerto Rico on stamps and at Territories of the United States on stamps. All pictured are dead. All images for stamps are images of stamps related to the topical article, "xx on stamps". There has been some discussion with the disrupter of the article, but he has not been able to provide an example for use of the template to date, and he refuses to explain how fair usage cannot be applied in the case of stamps for USPS licensing. He merely asserts he is familiar with the policy, so he can delete information WP:BULLY.

The latest example of capricious unsourced, unexplained deletion without discussion at a Talk page is found at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps. The stamps pictured at issue are four battles commemorated on USPS stamps which were not previously by the (free usage) USPD. Battles pictured on USPD stamps with free usage such as Battle of Fort Sumter and Battle of Gettysburg are NOT duplicated with USPS licensed images in an attempt to meet the requirement to limit the use of fair use images. The effect of the disruption is to remove two stamps in the article commemorating battle on water, two stamps related to the first half of the war not commemorated on stamps of prior issues.

Is there an example of appropriate use of the USPS licensing template for non-administrators to use? Any guidance beyond telling me to meet ten requirements already met, besides threats to have me barred, would be appreciated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It really would help if you gave links to each of the files involved. Are you talking about Template:Non-free USGov-USPS stamp? But you don't use that on your rationale for File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg? I can't find an example where this template is actually used.

Looking at your Talk page. I can't see that Werieth has been very constructive in his contributions, on the other hand your dismissing his intercession as "vandalism" allowed him play the NPA card and (worth recording here I think) pen this on your page

"Wow, read WP:NPA. Fair use means nothing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a far more strict policy on non-free media WP:NFCC. If you continue to abuse non-free media I will take this to ANI and request that you be blocked unit you demonstrate that you understand our policy on non-free content. If you want to discuss this we can do that either here or on the article talk page, but the files need to stay out of the article."

Well, what to make of that? Plainly a juvenile I would suggest, wouldn't you think, or at any rate someone best treated as a juvenile i.e. as one to treat with massive respect for his burgeoning years and expertise. I'm not sure what his issues are, but another contributor suggests it's because you haven't supplied critical commentary on the stamps themselves. So I would advise doing that in the first instance. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

To be more specific, though I think some of this is set: US stamps published in 1978 or later are not considered PD Gov works (Which is noted here). However, if a post-1978 stamp only consists of: a painting or earlier work that is otherwise out of copyright itself, and plain text, then the stamp would be considered PD-old or PD-ineligible, and would be free. Otherwise it is non-free. We are required to have a high metric for inclusion of non-free media, and simply to document the fact that a stamp was made in commemoration of an event itself is not sufficient for inclusion (since this can be done by text alone) - their needs to be discussion and commentary on the stamp's image or the nature of the commemoration. This would appear to be the case for File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg which, per [6] is new art (derivative of old photos but with clearly sufficient novelity to create copyright), so it is non-free, and we don't need to include it on the Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps page to say that the stamp exists which you have the above source link as text proof. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be difficult for VirginiaHistory to give contextual commentary that would make these images satisfy the context and significance criteria. I'm not sure why he doesn't. But Werieth, prepared to spend significant time on issuing blood-curdling ultimatums in the event of VH continuing to "abuse non-free media" (well, you have to smile), nevertheless hasn't actually indicated which of the criteria he considers is being so dastardly abused by VH in this way. W often posts at non-free content review to the effect "do we really need 5/6/7 ... whatever non-free files here", so I wonder whether minimality is in fact his gripe. And would that in fact be an issue? That is to say suppose VH did supply contextual remarks about each of these images, so that inclusion of the image did genuinely add to an appreciation about the encyclopaedic commentary he provided, would that be sufficient even were there several such images, half a dozen, a dozen even? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Werieth is in the right here in practice (no comment on how he words things though) - these articles are equivalent to lists (even if they aren't called lists or the like), and non-free thus has to satisfy WP:NFLISTS, which basically means inclusion is not appropriate unless you have significant discussion about the image itself (eg it is an NFCC#8 issue); I know in the example I give, yes, you can mention there was a line of stamps to commemorate the Civil War, and an article designed the stamps, but that's not discussing the image itself and the reader does not need to see the image to understand this line of stamps were made. Now, if there was critical commentary about the series or an individual stamp's artwork, sure, that would justify inclusion, but knowing stamps and how these articles are being set up, this is extremely unlikely to be possible. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think that's on the whole right, the lists analogy did occur to me as well. Personally I don't have any objection to "list" articles, but I can see the need for some form of control if we're not to end up with articles about stamps which are essentially catalogues. I can't see what the harm could have been in W taking some time out to explain the problem on VH's talk page, especially as another contributor had suggested the problem was something else. One of those stamps, the Fort Sumner stamp in that series, looks like it's not copyrightable on your criteria because its design is based on an 1861 lithograph, and I think it would been more constructive to engage a discussion that established that (or not, I mean haven't looked at in detail). And also that discussion about lists (or at least one such policy discussion I've looked at) talks about 'judicious' use, which I take to mean that one or two such images are tolerated in a list largely containing free images.

Thank as ever for your input. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

We have been through the use of non-free stamps, not just US ones, approximately 300 times previously in deletion nominations over the last 5 years. While I would love to keep all the stamps, WP:NFCC must prevail, so all post-1977 US stamps must fully comply with NFCC. I occasionally review Category:Fair use images of United States postage and Category:Fair use stamp images to see if any new images fail NFCC. There are several that are quite appropriate because they are being used in articles about that specific stamp or set of stamps not just as an attempt to provide each and every image that is mentioned in the prose. Appropriate use of the USPS licence template is not just a simple matter of saying here is a stamp that uses it properly, because how it is used is not seen on the image page. This File:Alice Paul stamp.gif appear to be a proper use of the template for an appropriate article but File:Lady-Bird-Johnson-Forever-Stamps.jpg is not.

I've looked the "US history" articles of TheVirginiaHistorian and in the first instance advised him that Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps was in fact more like a list and should be treated as such, however, others disagree and have praised them. To me these are not encyclopaedic philatelic articles but historical pages profusely illustrated by stamps with little substantive philatelic information other than what a basic stamp catalogue provides. To me that is not enough when we are considering non-free images and certainly does not provide the critical commentary necessary to pass WP:NFCC#8. A citation or two from one of the well known stamp journals or a newspaper reference, but better than just a swipe from a press release published verbatim by a third party, should be considered a minimum requirement. MASEM has the measure of this issue but why we have to rehash the same ground over and over again is beyond me. One month it's stamps, later album covers or book covers. If NFCC had more specific clarity and examples we might not waste so much time on this topic but that's unlikely to happen any time soon. ww2censor (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Technically, this use is prohibited via WP:NFLISTS, but I can see how someone would argue that these aren't strictly lists - but in actually these still are. I think in most cases, editors forget we're supposed to be encouraging free content over documenting everything, and hence we get situations like this. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with Ww2 and can certainly understand the frustration when dealing with recidivist editors who just won't get the point. I don't know whether VH falls into that class or not. I can't say he can have helped his cause much coming out all guns blazing as he did, but if he was new to the great NFC game he ought to have been a bit more sympathetically advised on his Talk page (to be fair one editor did try). I do think that's Ww2's analysis right on the money concerning critical commentary, but surprised he singles out File:Lady-Bird-Johnson-Forever-Stamps.jpg as an example of something that doesn't muster. I would say it does looking at the article where it appears, not a philatelic article indeed but with adequate commentary about the stamps. I think the article would be poorer without the section, and the section the poorer without the image. Incidentally the rationale points to this USPS link Uses Not Requiring Permission which includes this

Educational Use

Noncommercial, educational uses limited to teaching, scholarship, and research.

which suggests to me that USPS wouldn't be greatly vexed by fair use images appearing in Wikipedia and (on the basis of a further remark about catalogues and price lists) even in list type articles. I mean I suppose some Wikipedian has tried approaching their Rights Office to enquire? It would be brilliant if in fact profusely illustrated articles on American postage stamps (and not just American of course) were permitted on Wikipedia. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I see that last about USPS permission is addressed above in another thread. I understand that Wikipedia maintains a stronger policy than that required by US law, but the purpose of that is presumably to protect it from litigation. When the the issue of litigation doesn't arise, as here, then I can't see where's the problem. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason is that we are a free content work and want to continue to drive people to use free content and minimize non-free. This is more a philosophical reason in the nature of the Foundation's mission than it is a legal aspect, though by meeting the Foundation's mission we are also protecting it. So it doesn't matter if the USPS would never touch WP with a legal suit for using stamp images, they fall outside of what the Foundation continues free, and thus we are required to minimize their use, period. And this is why we are harsh on it, because when enforcement is lax, the line for inclusion too easily slips back to simple fair use, which is not what the Foundation allows for (the Foundation's Resolution is necessarily stronger than fair use). That's why the primary concern is free verse non-free; fair use never enters the picture. --MASEM (t) 06:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No, this is just so much cant Masem. I've already done we invited him in and he brought his donkey too with you. As for Wikipedia's mission it is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license", with qualifications of which one concerns exemption doctrine policies in respect of fair use of images to illustrate inter alia contemporary work. You're not empowering Masem, you're disenfranchising. If Wikipedia philatelists elevate the issue, I'll certainly support them. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

And just using fair use images is being lazy. The Foundation's approach makes it a necessary challenge to figure out how to present a topic with a minimum of non-free images (including the potential minimum of zero); non-free should be seen as a necessary last resort if a topic cannot otherwise be meet with text and (potential) free media to start with. Unfortunately too few editors recognize this as the right starting point, and we have to enforce that approach due to the Foundation's statement of minimizing non-free to only exception uses, not what fair use would allow. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8 reads, Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. At Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps, CACWPS, two of the four battles relate to combat on water not pictured in the 1960s (free) issue, two of the first half of the war not included previously. At each stamp image, there is a commentary which places the battle in context of the American Civil War.

I’ve asked for examples. ww2censor suggests use of File:Alice Paul stamp.gif is appropriate, but it merely illustrates the entire series, with no commentary related to Alice Paul. Whereas context and significance of each of the four fair use USPS postage stamps is given alongside each stamp at CACWPS.

The use of File:Lady-Bird-Johnson-Forever-Stamps.jpg was honoring her for her work at beautification, related to the four beautification stamps also pictured, although that commentary was also missing. Unlike that at CACWPS, and less than the context given to USPS stamps deleted at Puerto Rico on stamps. It seems I have exceeded the commentary already for both examples available in all three articles W disrupted, Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps, Puerto Rico on stamps and Territories of the United States on stamps. Where's the beef? None of these is so abbreviated in substance or context as the two examples administrators can provide which are lists or stubs without 20% of the text found in the articles I have written. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No, commentary is expected to be more than just restarting factual things about the image. Commentary nearly always comes from secondary sources providing novel statements. The fact that the stamp depicts one of the Civil War battles can be stated by text and does not require the image to understand that this stamp exists. We would need commentary on the stamp's art itself to be valid for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, unlike what I think you just said, WP:NFC. Acceptable use. Images. #3. Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it. You seem to be vitally interested in the art depicted, rather than identification of the stamp commemorating the battle, which is what showing the USPS image of the entire stamps would obtain.

A thorough discussion of the stamp art is not WP policy. There is no such discussion of the art at the example provided File:Alice Paul stamp.gif. I am using the resources recommended on the WP Philately Project page, the National Postal Museum. Each reference is cited in each of my articles. Did you have alternative sources you would like me to use, that you might post on the Philately project page for others to use? I intend to expand the first draft over time, I readily acknowledge I am new here, and I am trying to contribute in good faith based on the information provided me.

Since my articles surpass the example agreed to as sufficing WP requirements here by two others, -- as an alternative view, could you give me another example on wikipedia of compliance with USPS fair use license as you believe it to be appropriately used, --- that I might more clearly see your understanding? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll note that Acceptable Uses is preceded by the statement that all other NFCC requirements have to be met. In general, the only time that post '78 stamps will meet that is if the stamp itself is notable for its own article such as Breast cancer research stamp. A thorough discussion is policy, as this is what contextual significance requires, otherwise you are just using the image to show the stamp exists and that is not sufficient for non-free policy. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

insert. @ Masem. There are not only stamp articles, there are topical articles. Since there is a policy with permits it, where else is there a policy which forbids displaying stamps by the images of the stamps themselves as stamps? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because policy permits an article doesn't mean it permits the usage of non-free media on that article. (BLP is a notable case) Often in the case of these "topical" articles the individual stamps are not notable enough for their own article, and are covered in the wider topical pages. But if a given stamp isnt notable enough for an article why is notable enough to include a non-free image of it? Werieth (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

1. 9 refers to A magazine or book cover, the discussion is on the use of entire stamps to illustrate a stamp commemoration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian, a magazine cover was used as an example, but it applies to a large variety of works. Just because policy doesnt list you exact case, doesnt mean that similar examples shouldnt apply. Read my post above. Werieth (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFC#UUI #9. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Another example that could be cited, where there currently isnt an image but should be is Statue of Liberty Forever stamp. Werieth (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Werieth. That is, a descriptive analysis of the stamp as is provided by the National Postal Museum or the USPS at the time of the stamp issue, correct? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No, its actually about a fairly major screwup by the USPS, copyright infringement, and trying to pass off a photo taken in Las Vegas as a picture of Statue of Liberty. Werieth (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no photograph today, you just suggested that the commentary there would justify USPS fair usage, "where there currently isnt an image but should be is Statue of Liberty Forever stamp". None of the images you have disrupted on my pages are photographs, they are entire images of postal stamps license by the USPS as fair use. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Strongly agree with TVH. Once again, the commentary isn't rocket science and can easily be dealt with. Opinions about the commentary are not a justification to delete images, much less nominate them for deletion. Werieth, you are just rehashing the same fuzzy opinion. And claiming the USPS has screwed up only takes the discussions to a new level of absurdity. See my thoughts above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, if you take a look at the particular image in question Statue of Liberty Forever stamp the USPS mistook an image of a File:Statue of Liberty New York Las Vegas.jpg as a the real thing, took it from a stock image service and failed to obtain copyright permission. I would call that a screw-up under just about anyone's definition. Werieth (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Critical commentary is necessary to meed NFCC#8's dual-prong test, particularly the part about if omission will be harmful. The critical commentary would mean that removing the image would likely make it difficult to understand what the critical commentary is talking about, and thus a reason to have it. Without that commentary, then it's just an image next to text and no contextual significance is given, so removal would not hurt the reader's understanding of the topic (here, being that the USPS has issued stamps to commemorate the civil war). This is not opinion, this is practice. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

USPS template 2

This (yet another) opinion can be applied to all non free content images, so why don't we purge them all, scrap the non free content provisions WP has provided for us and be done with it? No thanks. Again, our biggest concerns should be for legal considerations for WP and compromising anyone's interests. Nothing like this has ever occurred here. Not even close. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Even the Foundation uses a stronger metric than just the legal considerations - they want us to minimize non-free and encourage free content development. Their bar is well past the requirements that fair use would need. The reason we want critical commentary on images is because that is an appropriate balance to showing that an image is necessary to include. There are some cases where the image can be used without commentary on the image (such as cover art for identifying the published work when that's a notable topic), but they are otherwise difficult and highly subjective arguments that are never resolved. Providing critical commentary on the image itself is a very objective (not 100%, but a lot less subjective) metric to judge if an image is needed. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, no one disputes, at least I haven't, that we need critical commentary. Once again, this can be easily remedied, and all that need be said here in so many words (thanks for your 'help', btw) is that a stamp was once issued for a given person/place for an anniversary or what have you. Once again, we are talking about stamp images for use in stamp articles. The use of free content (very) far surpasses the advent of non free content usage, so your point there doesn't hold much water -- esp since NFC policy doesn't articulate this. Again, USPS NFC images are unique as the USPS openly claims such images can be used for educational purposes. Again, all this opinionated bickering is counter productive to the incentive of philatelic writers. After seeing all the fuzzy opinionated nonsense TVH and others, myself included, have had to put up with it will be a wonder if anyone ever takes to writing stamp articles again. None of you have cited no clear cut NFC policy violation and have yet to demonstrate how WP or anyone's interests have been compromised, per fair usage considerations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"that a stamp was once issued for a given person/place for an anniversary or what have you" is not critical commentary, since that's a fact. Critcial commentary needs to be drawn from secondary and third-party sources, not primary sources and statements of fact. We set a high bar for non-free inclusion across the board (even if the copyright owner wants the material to be used for educational purposes) because we are aiming to generate free content and mininize non-free content. We are purposely much more stricter than fair use by design. That's what the Foundation has set, and if you don't like that, you are free to start a less stringent encyclopedia elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No example provided of USPS fair use in articles matches the critical commentary and context found in Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps, Puerto Rico on stamps and Territories of the United States on stamps -- in total text OR for each stamp. Since these linked articles EXCEED any article extant at Wikipedia given the examples provided, they should be allowed fair use images from USPS. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Masem, what policy are you referring to here?? You have made several references to 'We' (not us?) and 'The Foundation' but have yet to link to or support any of your claims in that regard. Would you kindly do that for us now? In any case, there are reliable secondary sources, also, to support critical commentary, and I'm a little disappointed efforts have not been made to help TVH in this matter. Why are you not trying to help? Are you saying there is no possible way to keep these images in the articles? (!) Please supply/link to the policy regarding your opinion of legitimate critical commentary and any other opinions about what the 'Foundation' wants -- or at this point, you really need to do the honest thing and mention that your opinions in reality are unfounded in NFC/Fair Use policy. Again, you have yet to articulate any clear cut policy violation and have yet to link to any given policy that explains in no uncertain terms that your opinions here are anything more than that. Links please. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8 has been pointed out several times before. Contextual significance can only be achieved for inline images like this with critical commentary about the image itself, because without that, I can remove the image and not harm the reader's understanding of the topic (this being that the Civil War has been commemorated on USPS stamps). To show this specific stamp exists, the use of text replaces the use of the image, per WP:NFCC#1. This is a list article, meaning non-free should not be used to start with to keep with minimizing non-free use per WP:NFCC#3. And the Foundation's statement on non-free is found here: here, stating that even if the copyright holder considers the images free for educational use, it fails the Foundation's definition for free. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

None of your example lists provide critical commentary: they are simply documenting facts that X was commemorated on stamps. As such, no non-free cannot be used on those articles, particularly since there are free images that illustrate the fact that X was commemorate on stamps. We are not a stamp collecting catalog, so we should not be trying to illustrate every possible example, but simply outline how the commemoration has been done. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. First off, no one is trying to write a simple catalog. The articles in question lend themself to history on stamps, much the same way history is represented in artwork. Secondly there are already dozens of stamp articles with plenty of images, free content and NFC. Third, we have already addressed the idea of critical commentary, that it can easily be dealt with 'if' it is lacking. You have yet to support that idea with actual policy also. Last you have yet to supply links to any of your opinions, still, and at this point you have committed multiple counts of WP:IDHT and disruption. You just keep talking. And for someone who is preoccupied with video games and fantasy and obviously has no qualms about their inclusion in a "stringent" encyclopedia, your idea about keeping stamp articles out on that basis doesn't hold much water and is yet another one of your opinions. I think we've heard enough of your empty talk. Links please. The ones you supplied don't cut it. For example Lists: non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. Where does it say these images can't be used? Minimal usage has also been addressed. Minimal usage lends itself to the idea that any 'one' NFC image can only be used in one article. Again, you simply refuse to get it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You are close to personally attacking me, as a note.

Yes, these pages are like catalogs, as it is documenting without discrimination for summarizing. Even if every stamp associated with a topic was free, if this creates an effectively large gallery, as these are heading towards, that should be done at Commons, not here. I've supplied the links to policy which has been in place for 8+ years, and that has been practiced like this, in my direct experience with it, for 6+ years as we've outlined, which everyone else on WP gets without problem. The lack of critical commentary is lacking and the onus is on those wanting to retain the image to provide that , but I have searched for additional discussion about some of these stamps and only come out that I can verify they were issued but no discussion or critique of the artwork or the stamp, making the likelihood more can be added is rare. And in the case of the "judicious" use of NFLISTS, there's nothing special these non-free stamps are aiding to the topic, since there's plenty of free images that show the topic - that event X has been commemorated on stamps, so NFLISTS is still valid. Minimal use is not just as simple as you state - it is both per article and per the entire work. If no non-free images can be used to illustrate a topic without losing reader's understanding, we do that, per NFCC#3. And the video games issues is completely unrelated, my concern is being stringent to a free content encyclopedia that can cover a broad range of topics.

The core issue still comes down to NFCC#8, part two - how is the reader's understanding of event X being commemorated on stamps harmed by not showing a handful of non-free stamps among a handful of free stamps alongside text that outlines all (free + non-free) stamps that have been issued? There is no way there is harm is done unless you can say more from secondary sources about the specific stamps such that the absence of the image will harm the reader's ability to understand that critique. Until you can add that, these fail policy. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Insert: After all that you've said and done about other policy now NFCC#8 is your core issue?? The article is about stamps, not just the history. To show the history on the stamp the stamp image is used, as no other free content (or any) other image will suffice. There are plenty of NFC stamp images in stamp articles on that basis. Once again, you misrepresent policy. You need to stop hounding good faith contributors with these incompetent interpretations of NFC policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to say images are okay - NFC enforcement is not automatically done and thus unless proven okay through a process like FFD or FAC to validate the images, those other NFC stamp images may be at problem. And no, NFCC#8 is not the only issue but the primary issue that needs to be resolved first, then we can consider if #1 and #3 are met too. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The reference to 'other stuff' was supplemental, what you're avoiding here is that the article is about stamps, not just the history. To show the history on the stamp the stamp image is used, as no other free content (or any) other image will suffice. Hence, NFCC#8 has been satisfied, and all we have is your opinion that says otherwise, still.
NFCC#8 : Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Gwillhickers you appear to have competence issues. You have been told repeatedly about NFCC and fail to understand it. Given you inability to understand policy and current practices I would suggest you stop commenting on this subject. NFCC doesn't spell every possible example out, and doesnt try to because there are always going to be cases that where not explicitly though about before and users will attempt to use that in include more and more non-free media. If you actually read what what has been posted you will not that we are not saying that images are completely forbidden with regards to stamps. What has been said is that the current articles in their current condition cannot support the current usage of non-free media. I actually told the TheVirginiaHistorian early on how they could possibly include 1-3 files in the Puerto Rico article. I said it would take third party reliable sources discussing the images beyond the basics that they exist. I would also make a note that you need to preview and review your edits before saving since just about every edit you make has 3-4 follow up edits that cause edit conflicts. Werieth (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

NFC policy has been skirted and misrepresented by both Werieth and Masem. I have even linked to and spelled out these policies verbatim to show that such reference to them was not represented. Now we're being handed the idea that "NFCC doesn't spell every possible example out" which makes these unsupported arguments even fuzzier. No one has yet to demonstrate how the images in question have violated any NFC policy. And once again, if there is a critical commentary issue, this can be easily dealt with. Once again, the main reason why we have NFC policy is to protect WP legally and to not compromise anyone's interests. No one's interests have been threatened or compromised in any way -- as such these spurious interpretations of NFC policy remain incompetent. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WRONG. NFC policy is to protect downstream reusers by providing them as much free content as possible to use in whatever ways they want and minimize how much non-free they may have to bring with them. That's the goal of the Foundation's mission is to develop reusable free content. As part of reaching that goal, we also by happenstance protect the Foundation's possible legal issues with upstream content providers by assuring that our use of their works are minimal and meet the requirements of fair use law. But that's happenstance, not the goal. And we have pointed out the policy (NFCC) that applies several times. Note that WP:NFC is a guideline that attempts to distill policy but NFCC is still required. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please supply the link that supports this (yet another) opinion. No sweeping and generic references please. Please spell out the actual policy for us if you can. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

m:mission and [7]. Not opinion, it is statement of fact this is the Foundation's goal. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually you are WRONG. NFC 2 clearly says : Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material, so once again you have misrepresented NFC policy, as no one's interests are compromised here and again you have been and continue to read lot of your own conjecture into the discussion to justify your apparent self assumed role as the Foundation's watchdog, per the bulk of your editing activity. Reminder. You do not own Wikipedia and should not carry on as if you do, deleting images (or justifying such) based on your opinion, with no discussion beforehand, and no clear cut policy violation outlined by you, or anyone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's only one point of NFC, there are 9 other criteria that have to be met at the same time. So I stand by the clear statement that the Foundation's resolution and our NFC policy is for downstream users and less about protecting the Foundation from upstream creators. The requirements to meet downstream users is stricter than what would be needed to protect the Foundation, so it's great that by doing the former, we automatically do the latter. But the overall intent is for developing free content, the focus on downstream reuse. And the problem is that too many editors come in NFC thinking it is fair use when it is obviously not, and only a few editors have been in this area to know how to enforce it properly because people piss all over them when their images get deleted. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And under the Foundation's goal is the USPS fair licensing agreement which includes the description that editors seem to want reiterated, easily done without taking off the images. Just to make sure we are on the same page, WP:NFCI. "Acceptable use. The following cases are a non-exhaustive list of established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia... Images. Some non-free images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content... [which includes for stamps,] 3. Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it."

In the article Puerto Rico on stamps the USPS commemorated the Puerto Rican poet Julia de Burgos on a postage stamp. The USPS fair use license applies to an image of the commemorative on Julia de Burgos identifying the stamp. It is not for the purposes of the biographical article Julia de Burgos depicting Ms. Burgos. If the image of the postage stamp depicted an ink well to represent the poet, the image of the entire postage stamp would still be used because it meets the NFCI standard #3 for non-free image use on Wikipedia, "For identification of the stamp or currency", commemorating Julia de Burgos.

If there is a dispute to resolve, there is always dispute resolution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

NFCI is a guideline, and at the start of that section, says all images still must meet all NFCC policy points. Taking the de Burgos example, the article is not about commemorating de Burgos on a stamp, but the entity of Puerto Rico in general, which is well demonstrated by the existing free images on the page. So NFCC#1 (you have described this stamp exists in text), #3 (minimizing non-free), and #8 (lack of contextual significant to the stamp itself) all fail. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The image meets all NFCC policy points. #1 I describe the stamp existing in the text to demonstrate it is after 1978, and so qualifies for fair use license, it is not free. #3 the stamps chosen are limited to the topic of the article, the one Puerto Rican, not the entire American literature series. #8. the contextual significance is established by:

"Julia de Burgos in the Literary Arts series, honored as a poet, issued 2010.[10] Julia de Burgos was honored with a 44-cent stamp on Nov. 15, 2010 for National Hispanic Heritage Month. She was one of Puerto Rico’s most celebrated poets, an award-winning writer and journalist. Julia de Burgos is commemorated among the Postal Service’s Literary Arts series along with 75 other Hispanic-themed stamps. The stamp features a portrait of Julia de Burgos created by artist Jody Hewgill.[11]"

So by NFCC, #1,3,8, all succeed. When the disruption is discontinued I intend to further copyedit to refine and expand the commentary. Contrast the passage above with the commentary elsewhere for an individual stamp in an article of multiple stamps, "78¢ Alice Paul". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been repeated told how it first and foremost fails NFCC#8, since understanding the stamp exists as a commemorative stamp can be understood w/o using text. Failing #8 meets it also fails #1 and #3. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong once again. The 'Article topic' is about the images in question, so the images in question increase the understanding of that topic. If we were to rigidly use your yardstick here all NFC images would disappear. Given your repeated misrepresentation of policy we obviously need to get a broader consensus here. See my comments above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you are clearly wrong showing a lack of understanding of the NFC process.. The article topic is absolutely not about the images, it is about "How is Puetro Rico commemorated in stamps". So this can be completely done via text to explain what stamps were issued, the reason they issued the stamp, when they were, etc. Do you need to see the stamp in question to understand any of this, if that's all that's being discussed? Absolutely not. So unless the image is free, inclusion is not allowed per NFCC#8. On the other hand, if there was something from a source that said, hypothetically, talked about the actual image used on the stamp and the critique of that image, then not having the stamp image would be harmful and thus inclusion is merited. We allow plenty of NFC images based on this idea throughout WP, so you are completely off the mark saying that this interpretation would wipe out NFC images. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The text of NFCC #8 says, "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." --- When the topic is "[subject] on stamps", the images of the entire stamps themselves are the subject of the article, and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding of the article topic.

Likewise with a topical article on stamps, images are allowed because their presence significantly increases the readers' understanding. In biography articles for instance, images are allowed because their presence significantly increases the readers' understanding. It is not enough to say that text can convey the existence of a countenance, visual information is processed differently than textual information. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

NFCC#8 has two tests that must be met equally: if inclusion helps understanding, and if omissions harms understanding. Inclusion of an image nearly always meets that mark, but you have not shown how omission of the stamp harms the reader's understanding that there have been stamps commemorating a certain place or event; the text adequetely explains they exist which is all that is needed for understanding. (That said, you have shown at the discussion at NFCR that at least one you have been able to show why the reader needs to see the image, as to understand the motif used as described by a secondary source, but this doesn't apply to all of them.) --MASEM (t) 16:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Communcation breakdown

MASEM, one of the topics is Puerto Rico on Stamps. How in the world can you say "the article topic is absolutely not about the images"?? The topic is NOT about 'how' P.R. is commemorated on stamps. Those are your words. Here again, you have flagrantly misrepresented affairs. This is getting quite ridiculous. -- TVH, I would suggest restoring most if not all of your images and insist that this matter be resolved in a RfC conference. The discussion is going nowhere in this forum. i.e.Not even a hint of compromise. We should also call for the opinions of objective editors who spend most of their time writing and building articles, not those who spend the bulk of their time trolling around dismantling them. See my latest comments above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Stamps are not images. Stamps are little pieces of paper that are marked with graphics and text to represent postage paid for the postal service to complete delivery of the letter. That's what the article is about. Now do we need the artwork on the stamps to understand the fact that stamps exist that commemorate these events? No, you don't. If the article perhaps was titled "Artwork of Puetro Rico featured on US stamps" that might be something, but that's not what this is about. You're twisting the concept of what these are. And encouraging someone to go against policy would be considered disruptive for both that person and yourself, especially when you call them trolls and personally attack them and not spend the time to understand a key free content policy. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd come back to the point that visual information is processed differently than textual information, they are not equivalent, especially for a medium such as stamps which is primarily visual regarding the amount of information and meaning conveyed. Even the postage amount as text is now variable with the Forever issues. The significance of the stamp in a topical article is not the amount of postage, but the commemoration of an event represented in a visual manner, the image of the entire stamp. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So as to whether or not we have agreement on our understanding of key elements of policy, at WP:NFC#UUI 8. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp has a passage describing the stamp itself. A baseball card is not fair use to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds UNLESS "to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article." Fair use of the entire USPS stamps are okay when the stamp itself is described in a passage, the general public use of stamps, derived from the Congressional Joint Resolution initiating them makes them far more notable than commercial baseball cards commemorating athletes. The Clemente stamp image has been purged from the Puerto Rico on stamps article, although it meets this policy criteria.

Further, WP:NFCI permits images for identification of the stamp alone without critical commentary, (non-free content, images) 3. "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it." That the articles all have descriptive narrative alongside, and most of my twelve uploads have critical commentary related to the topic if not the art, they exceed the requirements for stamps or baseball cards. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Photographs from the 1880s/1890s

Is a photograph taken in the 1880s or 1890s subject to copyright? I have recently created an article on Pike's Lane (which closed in 1895) and there are photographs of the ground on various websites. Is there any restriction on using these? Number 57 21:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A similar question has been answered in the section right above. You will have to consider two copyright legisöations, namely US copyright (for hosting the digital copies on a Wikimedia server) and British copyright for the photographers. US copyright depends on the date of first publication while the British copyright term is based on the life of the author plus 70 years. The basic two questions here are these: "Has the picture been published anywhere before 1923", and "did the photographer(s) die before 1925". If both answers are yes, then an image is out of copyright both in the US and the UK. You might want to upload some images with a fair use claim though, but then you have to provide a rationale why they benefit the general reader's understanding of your article and why they cannot be replaced with contemporary out-of-copyright images. That said, you'll have to determine the copyright status of such images case by case. De728631 (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Unlikely that the photographer could be identified unfortunately. Number 57 22:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, excellent summary by De728631. I wish we all could be so clear. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

CC 3.0 to 4.0

This image should be licenced with a 4.0 license, but I could not find it while uploading. How can I change it?

• 

-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, PLOS content is still licensed under CC-by 3.0 [8]. De728631 (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And the terms of use say that unless otherwise indicated the materials are licensed under CC BY 2.5 [9]. Is there a subtlety about the type of materials covered by one page or the other or can reusers just choose as they like 2.5 or 3.0 for reproductions? -- Asclepias (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If the image is under 4.0, you can edit the description page and change "3" to "4", i.e. replace the template Cc-by-3.0 with the template Cc-by-4.0. However, the source you linked does not seem to specify the version 4.0. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

image in public domain

I want to include images in an page from a book produced in 1903. Are these images Public Domain or do copyright concerns still apply? AnnaSomerset (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If it was published in th US before 1923 the book is in the public domain but some other countries vary and rely on the creators death date. Check out the commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory page where you will find that most other countries are 50 or 70 years pma, so you will need to know the death date of the illustrator. ww2censor (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually more general far as US PD is concerned: published anywhere in the world in English before 1922 is probably adequate most cases for US PD. In the case of a work before 1909, as yours is, then it is certainly is regardless of where it was published and whether it was published in compliance with or without US copyright regulations. That's just for the US of course. You will need to check the laws for the country of origin as well if you want to upload them to Commons (almost certainly it will be PD that old). Otherwise you can rely on limited Fair Use local uploads (let me know if you need help) such as you can get away with from the knowledgeable and enlightened folk here at NFCR :). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)#

Ah, aplogies ... actually this isn't NFCR (Non Free Content Review) - not sure how this forum got onto my Watchlist - sorry. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The general consensus is that the Ninth Circuit is full of it and anything published in any language before 1923 is out of copyright in the US. Nobody has taken it to the Supreme Court, and the Ninth Circuit ruling is only binding on the Ninth Circuit, not the US as a whole, so it's still an open question. There's actually quite a number of works first published in 1903 by authors who were lived in 1944 and hence are still under copyright in life+70 nations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, right on both points. I should have better said "probably", but of course there are plenty of 1903 works still not PD in EU: the whole of Picasso's 'Blue period' to give just one example - all 1,000 or so of them of which 10,000 alone are to be found in the US, to repeat the old joke about Corot. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My head is reeling but I do realise the importance of copyright protection. Trying to make sense of all the seemingly conflicting requirements but am failing to do so. Maybe someone can help to interpret the rulings for me. I have a source article that had limited circulation around 1950 within a small community in Germany. It was never published. The author died in 1993. This article contained copies of images that he had taken from photographs held by members of that community together with a few illustrations copied from an older published document dated 1907. The images I want to reproduce in my Wiki page are all of street scenes and or vernacular buildings that have now long gone. My belief is this author would have welcomed a wider audience, if only Wiki had been around. It seems to me that these images do comply with the Public Domain and can be freely sited. To be Wiki safe I had assigned them to Non-free media but as a result the images have now been removed. Can someone please confirm that I can reassign these images to the Public Domain.AnnaSomerset (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Anything not created by US citizens and not published before 1923 will now retroactively become copyrighted in the US if it was not out of copyright in its source country in 1996 (Uruguay Round Agreements Act). So in case of Germany this means that the photographers or artists would have to have died no later than 1925. Could you tell us which specific book you're referring to so we can try to check its publication history and image credits? De728631 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Anna, from your edit and upload history I have now determined that your book is Unforgotten Rösnitz by Heinrich Weicht. However, a German version appears to have been published after 1945 [10], so I'm afraid we cannot use any images created by Weicht himself. De728631 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Anna, sadly it is complicated but let's try and go through it. To use the images on Wikipedia or Commons we have to consider the status of the image in 2 jurisdictions - the US (as that is where Wikipedia's servers are) and the country of first publication, in this case Germany.

Germany first. German copyright law works like many other European jurisdictions on live of author + 70 years (this is actually an EU standardisation) so under German law the images will not be public domain (PD) until 70 years after the death of the author. The exception to this is images published without indication of who the copyright owner was. Do either the 1907 or 1950 publication give this information? If any image has the original photographer identified then those images are not going to be PD in Germany until 70 years after the author's death. If the original photographer isn't identified then there is a likelihood that images first published in the 1907 book are PD in Germany as the term of copyright is 70 years after publication. So any that has an unknown author will have become PD in Germany on 1 Jan 1978. Anonymous images first published in the 1950 book will not be PD as less than 70 years have elapsed since publication.

US status. As Coat of Many Colours and Prosfilaes say above anything published prior to Jan 1, 1923 is going to be considered PD in the US. The opinion of the Ninth Circuit to virtually all intents and purposes can be ignored. So the publication that you have from 1907 is PD in the US and anything in it is also PD in the US.

The 1950 publication is a different matter and assuming it was never published in the US (a safe assumption given that it was privately circulated) then material that was first published in this document is unlikely to be PD in the US until 95 years after it's publication, so if it was published in 1950 it will only become PD in the US on 1 Jan 2046.

So check all the images you want to use,

• • if they are in the 1907 publication and the photographer isn't known you can upload those and tag them with {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}
  • if they are in the 1907 publication and the photographer is known, you need to find out when the photographer died. If this was before 1943 you can upload those and tag them with {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-old-auto|author died 1943 or earlier}}
  • if they are in the 1907 publication and the photographer is known but died after 1943 then see below for another option
  • if they are first published in the 1950 publication and the photographer isn't known then these images can only be used under the non free use criteria
  • if they are first published in the 1950 publication and the photographer is known, you need to find out when the photographer died. If this was before 31 December 1925 then you can upload the images and tag them with {{PD-1996}} and {{PD-old-auto|author died 1943 or earlier}} (these are OK because they would have been PD in Germany before URAA on 1 Jan 1996 as the German copyright period is based on creator's death not date of publication)
• In any other circumstance - which really is known authors who are still alive or died comparatively recently then the other option is to approach them or their heirs to see if the now copyright owner will release the images into the public domain but let's worry about that hurdle as and when it's reached.

Note the onus will be on you as the uploader to show that you've made efforts to identify the photographers, it's not unknown for someone to claim 'photographer not known' to try and bypass copyright laws. Nthep (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly defer to Nthep (thanks for that Nthep).

I had a quick look at your Talk page, Anna. Nice images and it would be pleasant if they could indeed be used on Wikipedia. But as your templates indicate, you don't yet have a home for them yet in Wikipeida articles and Fair Use images can't be stored in a depository like Commons. The whole point is that they're specifically intended for a particular article (or sometimes a group of articles). And then an important requirement is that they significantly add to the reader's understanding of the topic, so you would have to, at the least, write relevant critical commentary in the article about the image, and even then it might not suffice. Finally your images are too detailed for Fair Use, in time they will get reduced automatically by a bot (a programmed 'robot' designed to automate these sort of tasks).

I haven't checked whether you're new to editing or not, but if you are then this probably perhaps a little ambitious as a start. I can't see the harm in you trying one of those images on Commons. Commons:Copyright tags give a useful list, of which I suggest {{PD-old}} and {{PD-1923}} for the US. Put it in a relevant category, for examples there's a Commons:Category:Rozumice and see what happens and indeed I see there are images from that source of yours there already, up a few years unchallenged so far ;). Good luck. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your very clear and detailed explanations. Yes of course I an new to editing! I now have a better understanding of where I am and where I might need to go. AnnaSomerset (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding file-links to list pages

I added some file links to the page List of World War II flying aces earlier, but my changes were reversed by Werieth because of copyright issues. However, I did not upload any of these pictures myself, I merely added links to the same pictures that are used as the main picture on the personal pages of the various aces in question. If any of these pictures violate copyrights, should they not be deleted from Commons rather than these links removed? If they do not violate copyrights, can they not be used on this list, as many similar pictures already are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arildto (talk • contribs)

The files are not from commons, they are in fact classified as non-free media and as such their usage is restricted, in most cases it means the file can only be used on the article about the person. Werieth (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Werieth is correct. And if I remember right (but I may be confusing you with someone else), you didn't provide 'rationales' for your uploads (if you had used the Wizard for your upload that would have been be taken care of automatically), grounds for immediate deletion.

The issue is "no lists" i.e. it's automatically assumed a violation of the "minimality" requirement if Fair Use images appear in lists. I'm sorry it's enforced so pro-actively here. It's not really something I would lose sleep on myself. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Music

what can I do to play music on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.23.43 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This does not sound like a copyright question, but some pages include a player box for music, eg Messiah (Handel). Click the play button to hear it. Or you can click through to the hosting page eg at File:Handel - messiah - 44 hallelujah.ogg and then download or play from there. They use .ogg format. Some music may be free to copy, other may be only under fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Climb and Collapse in population systems.jpg

How can file:Climb and Collapse in population systems.jpg be released when it is apparently from Scientific Monthly?The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Only the data came from there, and Sustainability1 claims that the graph is their own work. The style certainly does not look like a 1951 publication. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That said, some of the non-data visual elements are derivative of choices made in the original report, so there might be derivative work issues there. A raw plain graph just using the published data would not have that problem. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Now nomianted for deletion at Commons as a copyvio. Nthep (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

File:City Airport Train Logo.svg

Does this cross the threshold of originality, or should it be recategorized as {{PD-textlogo}}? Useddenim (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Austria is a civil law country and as a rough rule-of-thumb, has a very low threshold of originality, meaning this should be presumed copyrighted unless proven otherwise. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Can an administrator please review this pic

The image File:Charles&CamillaWeddingpic.jpg has been tagged for deletion, I uploaded it as a non-free and to me it met the criteria, I made my explanation while uploading and on the picture's talk page Can another administrator review the picture and have a final say on this, the sooner the better, thanks. (Monkelese (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It's an obvious NFCC#8 failure, as thousands upon thousands of Wikipedia articles which assert that famous or not-so-famous couples are married do so without images, and no one has ever said "I don't understand that that. Do you have a picture to provide context?" Sorry to be blunt, but that's what your nfcc rationale boils down to. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Bensel Yankee Leviathan structural design chart recreated.jpg

Are diagrams subject to copyright, and is it possible to create a free-use reproduction of a diagram from a copyrighted textbook? czar ♔ 00:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Depends what kind of diagram you're talking about. Some aren't; there's only one correct way to draw any specific structural formula, so unless you make a mistake, your diagram will look just like everyone else's. This one, however, could be done in numerous ways: you could put boxes in various places, change their size, move them to random spots, etc. There's no need for the organs of government to be located within a building-shaped area. In short, you could redraw this image and convey precisely the same information with a substantially different picture, so yes, this diagram is definitely subject to copyright. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend presents one issue on the copyright of presentation. Another consideration - if this diagram is representing the author's unique connectivity of these elements as opposed to something that is factual or data-driven, there is copyright in that core idea as well and even recreating the diagram in a unique orientation but keeping the same connectivity/topography of concepts will not remove that copyright. If, on the other hand, the connectivity is a factual/date or readily-accepted premise in the field, then you're okay to redo the diagram in a manner different enough to avoid similar presentation per Nyttend's suggestion. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Time magazine cover usage

Hello, not entirely sure if this is considered valid under fair usage guidelines, but would it be ok to add this image to Barry Commoner? Is usage considered valid with this template? prokaryotes (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Striking as the Time cover is, it's very unlikely to pass the full set of non free use criteria. There is already a non free use image of Commoner on the page and the Time cover, unless that image itself has been the subject of critical commentary, is unlikely to be agreed as meeting NFCC#8. Nthep (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure from which year this is but i guess early 70s, the cover story appears to be related to his bestselling books and theories, which had considerable influence in the literature, decision making and i guess was also criticized. The current image is released under a fair use policy by the University of Columbia. As long there is only one image i thought we can add this, till we find something else, to better illustrate his work and the media coverage from the past. prokaryotes (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not going to fly for two reasons

1. The amount of free use files should be kept to a minimum and there is already a free use image on the page (NFCC#3a)
2. How does this picture add to an understanding of his work or it's omission be detrimental to a reader's understanding of his work (NFCC#8)

I appreciate your frustration as I've been there, done that and got the t-shirt but the non free use policy is deliberately restrictive and actually tighter than US free use law. Nthep (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, ok :) Though, i think images are important to transport content and this image is in the suggested resolution, small and a good depiction of his work and the relation to the environment. If anybody is interested, here is the original image and magazine content (It contains a few bits about him). prokaryotes (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, this article preview, which might be noteworthy in regards to the Union Message and Nixon (Who founded the EPA at the time). prokaryotes (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't allow non-free images like book or magazine covers to show that there's an article or book written/by a person, unless the cover art itself is shown to be the subject of critical commentary. The fact that a Time cover story was dedicated to him should be a highlight of the article but one does not need to see the cover to understand that aspect (eg it fails NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 19:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I found now evidence that the cover is subject to critical commentary, it was the first environmental cover by the Time, because this issue introduced the environment section for the magazine. What do you think now? Might as well be included at Time Magazine. prokaryotes (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

That's good, and that led me to this: [11] which gives more insight on the cover. That would be appropriate to include now. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Good, and thank you both for helping me to figure this out. prokaryotes (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, you need to make sure that this commentary on the cover gets included in the article to make the upload stick. Nthep (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Uploaded it here and followed your advice. prokaryotes (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

British Pathe: Is this footage available for us to use or adapt and use?

The page in question.] --Orange Mike | Talk 22:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Initial inspection says the general answer is no. There's no clear indication these are in public domain and their website talks about licensing. There may be films that are in the public domain due to age, but the usual rules to check on these would have to be checked. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Image for Biographical Wiki?

Hi, I created a biographical page for someone in the entertainment industry - the director of a documentary I've been following. There were no copyright free pictures of her that I could find, so I actually was in touch with her and asked about an image, and she sent me one. I uploaded it, but I think I'm confused about how this works. Perhaps I'm not allowed to upload an image of that type? Or perhaps there is a copyright tag I can use in this situation? I thought it would be really nice to have a picture on the page, but I'm new to Wiki and I guess I don't quite get how it works... help, please! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amr0327 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to have the copyright holder, who may be the photographer and not the subject, to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT to verify their permission to our OTRS Team under a free licence. They may agree to licence the image under the one you removed but verification is required. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Filipino_journalists_protest_against_Noynoying_of_government_officials_over_media_killings,_April_2014.jpg

I am planning to include this photo, which was published on GMA News' Facebook page (but not on its website or other publications), on the Noynoying article, but I need to make sure that this indeed qualifies under non-free. Starczamora (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry. Please read WP:NFC#UUI. Specifically, this fails #3 and #7, and possibly #1 as well. —howcheng {chat} 19:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Help With An Image

I need some admin help with this one. I am working on the WINC (AM) article, the station where Patsy Cline got her start. I have found an excellent photo of her standing next to a WINC microphone.

The website the image comes from is a fan page about Patsy Cline. It has alot of stories, old pictures and what not. At the bottom, it says the information is copyright "EllisNassour", but I'm wondering if this person really owns the copyright to that photo. The photo would be from or just after 1948 (maybe '49), when Patsy first performed on WINC.

I found a cropped (and cleaned up) version of the same image on a Blogspot blog. In this case, no mention of a copyright is made, which further leads me to believe that "EllisNassour" does not own the copyright on the previously linked photo.

My question, since there isn't a confirmable copyright (and since anyone can snag a photo and put it on their fan page), is it possible for me to use this photo or even the cropped (and cleaned up) version, here on Wikipedia, specifically on the WINC (AM) article? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Give we have a free image of her within the same time period, if this was a non-free image, we would not be able to use it as duplicate of the free image in terms of identifying her. Thus, it really only can be used if it is free. To be free, we need strong proof that it is free - in this case, we'd likely be looking for if the image was published without copyright notice. And searching around (Google Image search helps), I found the same basic image used over at Brittanca [12], [13] and cited to be owned by "Frank Driggs Collection/Hulton Archive/Getty Images". As such, we should considered this copyrighted, non-free, and per NFCC, unusable due to the existing free image of her. --MASEM (t) 00:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:Masem: Well, that proves that "EllisNassour" didn't own the copyright to that image. Though, it stinks because we can't use it. :( Unfortunately, I believe that is the only image out there of her in front of a WINC microphone. Thanks, though, for your help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz images -- Copyright issue

Nyttend tagged File:Dr. Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz, 1983.png and File:MujaddidAhmedIjaz1987.jpg due to the creation of the images by a professional photographer in the local town in Virginia where we all grew up with my father and mother. We routinely had Olan Mills come in and for historical purposes prepare annual photographic images of the family. I would ask that Wikipedia Media Copyright administrators give me a few days to contact Olan Mills in Virginia and obtain a proper permission release for free use from them. We know the company well and I am confident we can obtain a release for this particular image. In fact, their website allows many images to be used in mediums such as this, so I just need to contact them and get the right data. To whom should someone at Olan Mills send directly their release permission if it is agreed? Nyttend explained at Mansoor Ijaz's talk page that it would be best to have the permission release sent directly to you. I ask therefore, as I am re-developing the subject article at the moment, that you allow me the time to obtain the release permission from Olan Mills studios. Thank you. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note to anyone who wonders: User:Mansoor Ijaz is the subject of the article (verified by OTRS), and we've been working together for weeks to get pages improved while avoiding COI problems. He's familiar with the COI policy and has been careful to respect it. I know that the images in question are on Commons, but the old equivalent to this page there, Commons talk:Licensing, has been changed so that it's just a talk page for the licensing policy, and I couldn't remember where to send him over there. I assume people here and there will have the same standard for OTRS proof of professional images. Nyttend (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, my father is the subject of the article for whom we are discussing the image copyright issue. Just to insure we have the facts square. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It is the same standard of proof needed for here and Commons. The emal address is permissions-commonswikimedia.org and the standard template at WP:CONSENT can be used. Nthep (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: Please see your email for the fully executed license release from Lifetouch, Inc. (owner of Olan Mills Studios). Rita Keiser is the sender and the attachment contains the necessary phraseology that should provide Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia justification to do a "speedy restore" of the image I seek to use in the biography I'm developing. Thank you. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Uploading an image taken by a photographer who has since passed away

I'd like to upload a headshot for an article I'm going to write (after I post the article), but the photographer who took the headshot is deceased. He was a professional photographer who passed away last year. The person to whom he left the rights to his photos is willing to give permission for the headshot to become a part of the Creative Commons. Would it be sufficient to have the current rights holder send in a permission for the photo? If not, what would be the best way to go about uploading this photo? Thanks. --Bernie44 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If the photographer has passed away, the rights were transferred. Whomever holds those rights (whether it be next of kin, their estate, or other) can release the image under a free license and send evidence of permission via an email to OTRS. It might also help to show evidence that the copyright transferred to that person if it is not an obvious next of kin or estate transfer. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.--Bernie44 (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding created image

Hello, I am new to wikipedia so trying to navigate my way is a little confusing. I have created my own diagram/image from a scientific article. How would i copyright this image?71.202.134.235 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have merely cropped it from the article than the original copyright applies. However, if you have drawn it with your own creative contribution then you automatically own the copyright. If you want to have it on Wikipedia you then have to release your rights so that others can use it. You can use CC-BY-SA-3.0 if you want attribution, or CC-0 if you want to release all rights and do not require to be attributed. Attribution is some text of your choice. People can pick their name or their Wikipedia user. You will have to register to have a Wikipedia user name. You can also place a request at WP:IFU. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

unable to upload

Why am I unable to upload a pic??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh123149 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well you are autoconfirmed and obviously not blocked. Do you get an error message, can you even see the Upload file link: Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. You can also place a request at WP:IFU. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Tagging for OpenAccess Journal Articles?

Hi. I'd like help on how to tag this image which is published by a lab I work in in an open access section of Physical Biology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakemayfield (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't find anything that says that this image is public domain on the IOP site. Can you point us to an explicit release into PD? Nthep (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Open access info for that journal is [14] which says that they use CC-BY-3.0 iff the article is listed as Open Access for that journal. We'll need the basic citation for that article to affirm this is open access, you should add this into the file info page. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Phys Biol is a hybrid open access journal, i.e. authors can opt in to open access if they pay a publication fee. Otherwise the articles are non-free and can only be read by subcribers. And it seems that this particular article is not free to read and use as there is no explicit Creative Commons tag here and you have to pay for accessing the full text. De728631 (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That's what I needed to check (and to compare; [15] is an open-access article and clearly labeled as such along with the CC branding). So yes, definitely not free, the article absolutely need the markings to be assured. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is definitely open-access as it is available in PMC. So, I guess, since my PI is the responsible author, it falls under the CC Attribution 3.0 Unported licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakemayfield (talk • contribs) 04:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. PMC is a free-as-in-beer service allowing anyone to access the material for free, but the material remains under copyright. Per [16] "Almost all of it is protected by U.S. and/or foreign copyright laws, even though PMC provides free access to it." To be Open Access, the article had to be listed on iop.org with the Open Access tags AND with the CC license tags, which it did not. So the article remains under normal copyright. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

File:BlackFuries.png

In reference to this archived unanswered question

• Can you give me an oppinion whether we can use these kinds of symbols or not?
• Should they be compiled into one single image to ensure compatibility with fair-use?

I'm not very familiar with US copyright and fair-use. I realize these fictional logos would be "illustration" or "visual identification" if only one image was used in the article, but in this list about 20 images to make sense. --Yamavu (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Normally we should not allow lists to have fair use images. For these though perhaps someone could paint their own similar symbols with a paintbrush. The symbols themselves look simle enough, but once you reproduce all the ragged edges and exact curve, copyright would apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Laura Marano.png

I uploaded the file, File:Laura Marano.png to the article, Laura Marano which was freeuse from Flickr. It was deleted without any reason or notice. Why was it deleted? Please restore the image. Thanks, Shane Cyrus (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The photo on Flickr was licensed with a Non-commercial license. For Wikipedia's purposes, this is not considered a "Free" image (free as in speech) and would be treated as non-free. As further, we are not allowed to use non-free where free images could be mde - that being the case universally for a living actor - so the image was deleted. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about base flipping image

I would like to use this picture: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3380923/#!po=71.8750 from this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3380923/#__ffn_sectitle. Under copyright it says "This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited." Can I just upload the picture to Wiki Commons? If so, how do I determine what type of Creative Commons license it is: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, 2.5 or CC0 Waiver? Thanks! Magladem96 (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

When you use someone else's picture you will have to use the license they provided, which can be seen precisely at http://www.plosone.org/static/license which links to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ which is CC-BY-3.0. It can be loaded to commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Magladem96 (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Undetermined

I have a hard time finding the copyright status of this image here. It's from the website military-today.com. Khazar (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Al Khazar: According to the website, all contents are © ARG 2006 - 2014. Therefore this is not a free image and could not be used on Wikipedia unless they relicense the image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Side note: ARG seems to be the initials of the website creator. It also looks like there are images from all over the internet and from very many sources hosted on that site. I'm not sure that we would easily be able to find the original copyright holder to the images. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: It's also found here. Khazar (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's two websites have watermarked the image but still no idea who the copyright holder is. Frankly I think you're going to have a problem establishing it as a copyright free or public domain image. Unless you can find an explicit release you have to assume it's copyrighted. Nthep (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Uploading a copyrighted image for Star of Caledonia

I would like to upload an image for Star of Caledonia but there are a lot out there, all concept art, and I don't know which one to upload and when I decide on one I don't know who to put down for the original artist. Do I just use the Gretna Landmark Trust or could I ask someone to upload an image for me? Example images are here and here. Simply south ...... discombobulating confusing ideas for just 8 years 11:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to use one of the example images given. They have been used widely in media which is why I believe they can be used as Fair Use. However, I do not know who the original author is so do I just put the credit as the Gretna Landmark Trust? Simply south ...... discombobulating confusing ideas for just 8 years 21:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is stamp non-free content use explained by WP:NFCI Guideline #3?

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Is_stamp_non-free_content_use_explained_by_WP:NFCI_Guideline_.233.3F This is a policy/guideline issue and should be discussed there. Werieth (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding photos to a wikipedia page

Hello. I work for the company Pridgeon & Clay and I am responsible for creating and maintaining a wikipedia page for our company. When I originally created the page, I included several photos related to our business. Those photos have since been removed by someone other than myself, with claims that the photos could be found elsewhere on the internet, namely our corporate website, and were therefore duplicates. In addition to this information (which I found from clicking on the "history" tab our wikipedia page, I have also received messages via my wikipedia account that these photos didn't have any licensing/copyright information attached to them, and therefore were deleted.

I have been asked by my company to once again add photos to our wikipedia page. Because the photos I uploaded before were removed, I would like to know what steps I need to take to ensure that this doesn't happen again. Our company's wikipedia page outlines 4 global locations for our business and we'd like to include 3-4 photos of each location. All the photos have been taken by employees of Pridgeon & Clay, or by a company that Pridgeon & Clay hired to take the photo. Therefore, all the photos I'd like to use are technically owned by Pridgeon & Clay and I have access to them simply because of my role within the company. Additionally, several of the photos I'd like to use are also located on our corporate website. I find the copyright and licensing policies to be very confusing and I'm not sure what the correct steps are to include these on our wikipedia page. Any guidance you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

~tcbrand

Tcbrand (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

One way to have this work out is for your company to publish a notice on the web site that states that the photos are available with a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license or something freer, perhaps public domain. It could be under http://prodgeonandclay.com/copyright or whatever the site is called. alternatively you can use email from the company as in WP:PERMIT to prove that the company is releasing the images under a free license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

La Patilla logo

Hello! I was wondering if I could have assistance with La Patilla's logo. I already added the text logo since it isn't an artistic rendering and had help with another user on Commons. However, I want to add the watermelon part of the logo s well.

Here is the link to the logo on Wikipedia:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lapatillalogo.png

Here is the link from La Patilla's website:

• http://lapatilla.com/site/lapatilla-logo.png

Any help would be greatly appreciated!--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright would apply to the one with the slice of water melon, but it could be used under fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, can you help me make the edits to do this?--Zfigueroa (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I will get around to it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done WP:FFU is the normal place to ask. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)