Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2014/December

Commons:deletion request 1.227 2014/12/01

In the Wikipedia article Tijuana Cross-border Terminal I uploaded a series of images that I both produced and created, example File:ASA 1991 Tijuana airport development plan with second runway.jpg plus 12 other images. I created and started the project in 1990 and supplied the majority of the references used including links when possible. This project was reported in the Wall Street Journal on August 1, 2001, in which the project and I were featured (reference 2 with link, Millman, Joe (August 1, 2001). "San Diego Airport May Cross Border". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 17 November 2014). But a statement was placed on the Commons:deletion request 1.227 from 2014/12/01 "another unique different base map than others in this series, leading to the obvious conclusion that not all these maps were prepared by one person." This work was done over an 8 year period, when it started in 1989, most advanced computer program was CADD, by 1996, computer programs had advanced by 6 generations. Supplied names, dates and newspaper references, copy written material with the US Tx reference, represented the project before the San Diego Airport Authority and was actually the project manager in Mexico and initiated all the land negotiations, for all that work, images were required. I previously requested clarification if I could use the cover of the booklet I wrote and produced for GAP which owns the Tijuana airport and was notified by this Wikipedia page that I could not since it belongs to GAP, but what I uploaded and created was my own personal material and never was the property of GAP or anyone else. The statement in the deletion request claims the "obvious conclusion" that this is not my work without even looking at the supporting references is disturbing. This Wikipedia article has been up since September and be seen by over 6,000 viewers. I tried to follow the outline of the Wiki upload but now the claim is that I do not hold a copyright over my own material Rnieders (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC).

The nominations of your images is taking place at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rnieders on the commons where you uploaded the images and it looks like you have made your claims and points there quite well, so you have to assume that the closing admin will WP:AGF. To supoort your claims you could of course get the GAP to email the OTRS team verifying what you say is fact. We really can't help you on this page but maybe some commons editors will weigh in on the deletion page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Google Maps/Google Earth APIs Terms of Service

1) Are these images:

Trail Ridge Road - elevation profile, ft mi.gif
Trail Ridge Road - elevation profile, m km.gif

in accordance with Google Maps/Google Earth APIs Terms of Service:
https://developers.google.com/maps/terms ?

Because they were created using elevation values retrieved into a table using Google Maps API and JavaScript (for custom latitude and longitude values). Normally these values can be used to create graphs (elevation profiles) in websites:

https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/examples/elevation-paths

but in this case they were put into a table (instead of making a graph) created using JavaScript in a HTML file on the hard disk, copied with mouse and used to create graphs for Wikipedia. So creating charts is allowed, but in this case they were created in different way (from retrieved "crude" numerical data) and published apart from a map.

2) similar question regarding these files:

Trail Ridge Road map small.gif
Trail Ridge Road map.gif
Trail Ridge Road map north.gif

but in this case only some of lines were created clicking with the mouse along some features visible in the Google Earth, more or less accurately (using Google Earth as background), other lines were created using overlays displayed in Google Earth but not belonging to Google Earth. All these paths were saved as KML file and used to create these maps.

Darekk2 (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this permission to copy material?

This page has a site wide footer which states that "The items contained in the Religious Information Service of Ukraine may be used, in part or in their entirety, by quoting the source." Is this adequite permission to cut and paste paragraphs without quote marks but with attribution into a Wikipedia article? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

To editor BoBoMisiu: I would say no, because it does not give explicit permission to modify the material. Content can only be included in Wikipedia en masse if it grants that permission. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anon126/R: D'oh! Ah, yes, that is missing. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What tag?

I have uploaded a photo (File:TTWM.jpg). I had downloaded it from a wikipedia page (https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%81%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1_%DA%AF%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86). What tag should I use? Actually, I am uploading it to put it in the same article, but a different language (English). Do you know if I can use the same file as the original language (above-mentioned link)? If yes, how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.242.115 (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A film poster, video or DVD cover can be uploaded as a non-free image so long as it is used in the infobox of the article about the film itself. Being a non-free image it must have a fully completed non-free rationale and comply with all 10 non-free policy criteria. Do not upload it until the article has been written. The best tag to use is Template:Non-free use rationale video cover. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this image properly licensed for a GA?

Hi there. I'm carrying out the Good Article review for Black Eye (album) and a question about one of the images it contains has arisen. (I'm no expert on images/licensing myself). At the commons page for File:CBGB club facade.jpg, there are a couple of big pink notices that worry me - is this image suitable for use in a for a Good Article? Thanks! — sparklism ^hey! 05:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It's fine, I've fixed the tags. If you're curious about the notices, head to WP:FIXGFDL. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ping Sparklism. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Russian Venture Company logo.png

Is this {{PD-logo}}? I just got this as a request from Files for upload. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Image use without permission?

Can I use these images without asking for permission?

File:Glioblastoma macro.jpg File:Glioblastoma - MR sagittal with contrast.jpg

I was thinking in using them in a powerpoint presentation, do I need to acknowledge the owner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.229.98 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Both have CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensing which means you may use them without obtaining any permission, as long as 1) you attribute the image to their uploader or by including a link to the image pages and 2) if you do modify the images and redistribute them, your resulting work remains CC-BY-SA 3.0. Now, you're just using them for a powerpoint presentation so if you're not redistributing that or simpling including the images with no additional modifications, that's not an issue, it's just you should include the credits to the images somewhere in the presentation. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"labeled for reuse with modification"

I'm looking for an image to use in the Combat Zone, Boston article, so I searched Google Images for "Images labeled for reuse with modification" and this image came up in the results:

http://www.caboosebooks.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/full_width/imagecache/full_width/Pilgrim%20late%2070s.jpg

It appears on this web page: http://www.caboosebooks.net/node/92

It's perfect for the article, and according to Google it should be okay to use, but I don't know how they determine that an image is "Labeled for reuse with modification" and I'm skeptical. Can you shed any light on this? Thanks. --Rosekelleher (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The files in question are still copyrighted, see http://www.caboosebooks.net/about "All material on this site © caboose. Reproduction in any format without permission is strictly prohibited." ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, how very strange. I can retrieve that image with an unrestricted Google image search but not if I limit to "labeled for reuse with modification". Perhaps it was a temporary glitch? In my experience Google only finds Wikipedia and Commons stuff for limited searches. However Flickr's own search of itself for restricted Creative Commons is OK. The best I could find there (searching Flickr for "boston censorship") is https://www.flickr.com/photos/cityofbostonarchives/11223219814/ but it's nowhere near as good. Thincat (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I'm just seeing these replies now. Thanks for getting back to me. Actually I think that photo of the Pilgrim is pretty good. I did manage to rustle up a photo but it's from ca. 1994, so it would be nice to have another one from the 60s. The Naked I and the Pilgrim, that'll work. Thanks! --Rosekelleher (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Facebook photos

I notice that some articles have facebook images and my question is on what form i need to upload facebook photo here to can stay. I'm not best with the copyright questions. - K.belev (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that photos on Facebook are licensed in any way, far less in a way which makes them eligible for re-use here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Then why this image is approved File:Mihaela Fileva.jpg ? - K.belev (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a recent upload and not "approved" (it's a Commons image btw). Lots of images are uploaded to Commons daily and need to be checked later, if something is problematic with their information. I have nominated it for a possible deletion on Commons, unless the uploader can provide more information on author and license. GermanJoe (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status of images

(Note: Since I'm feeling lazy today, I've just copied this from my original question at the Help Desk.) - I'm interested in adding an image or two to this article, but I want to make sure that these images are in the public domain. I'd assume that they are, because they appear to be very old, but since copyright is definitely not my strong point, I wanted to get a second opinion. Thanks, --Biblioworm 15:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Being contemporaneous to the ship's sinking in 1897 and even though we don't know the author or whether they were published or not, they should be fine per c:COM:CRT#United Kingdom. You are most likely best to use the commons tag PD-UK-unknown and upload to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with Ww2censor's response a bit. The only information about these photos at the source URLs is that they were created circa 1897. Unfortunately, that is probably not enough information to determine the copyright status of these photos. Applying PD-UK-unknown requires that these photos have been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1944. While I agree that this is quite likely to be true, it is entirely possible for them to be still copyrighted. Ideally we'd also like to know the identity of the photographers, when they died, and the date these photos were first published or exhibited. For example, one way to establish that they are in the public domain in the US would be with evidence that these photos were published before 1923 (i.e. perhaps they appeared in a pre-1923 newspaper or book). Alternatively, if the photographer died before January 1, 1944 it is quite likely these are PD in the UK. If I wanted to use these photos I would start with contacting the museums in question and ask if they can provide any additional details about the identify the photographers or publication history of these photos. If you can find some more information, I'd be happy to assist you with evaluating their copyright status. —RP88 ^(talk) 16:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@RP88: I think it would be reasonable to assume that these photos were published around the time they were taken (in a news item covering the wreck, perhaps). In any case, an image is not essential to the article, and I really don't want to go through the trouble of contacting the website to get a photo, so I can do without them. I just thought it would make the article look a bit nicer. --Biblioworm 19:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think RP88 has necessarity considered whether the photos have not been published and I did not state that PD-UK-unknown was the corrrect tag to use but most likely the best. For the UK one needs to determine if the image was published or not and curiously non-publication appears to make life less complicated. c:COM:CRT#United Kingdom clearly states Photographs created before 30 June 1957: 70 years after creation if unpublished, 70 years after publication if published within 70 years of creation. So what do you know about their publication, if anything? I agree that more information is necessary for you to use these images. ww2censor (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to throw a small spanner in the works, as the shipwreck occurred at Réunion, a French overseas territory, should it be French copyright rules that apply rather than UK rules? (Whether this would make much difference is doubtful).Nigel Ish (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Spanish statues

Are File:Rodrigo de Triana en Sevilla.jpg and File:Rodrigo de Triana en el Muelle de las Carabelas.jpg properly copyrighted as statues? The first looks like its in a public place, while the second is at the Wharf of the Caravels. I ask for use in Rodrigo de Triana. Seattle (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Licencing appears to be fine. Under Spanish law Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes. See c:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Spain. Nthep (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Cold 187um

Ive got a great picture of Cold 187um from the music video for Murder Rap. Cold 187um has no picture on his article and I firmly believe that this would be a good picture for the info box. However how can I tell if it's copy written and if it is would it still be possible to find a way to use it? I Dan tha Man I (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)I Dan tha Man I

@I Dan tha Man I: We can't use it unless the video clearly shows that it is freely licenced, otherwise it is copyright, most likely to the record company, production company or the artist. The artist is alive so there is a possibility of someone taking a photo and freely licencing it for us to use it. Sorry to not have good news for you but for a better understanding you may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Pic from German bio fair use for corresponding English bio?

So we've got a page for Max Bernhard Weinstein (a German physicist and philosopher who ill-fatedly disputed the Theory of Relativity and examined Pandeism in the 1910s, and died in 1918). I noticed that the page on German Wikipedia for this same guy, de:Max Bernhard Weinstein, has a pic of him, assuredly taken in 1910. I've searched high and low and this pic and one other very much like it, but lower quality, found on the same website, are the only pics of this person which seem to exist. It doesn't seem sensible to me that this would be usable on the German page and not be fair use or something to use here. I mean, it is a 100+ year old picture of a guy whose interest is likely limited to the educational value that our page offers. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair use is a USA legal concept, so it whould be applicable in all projects. It sounds like this image can be used under fair use, even if you cannot prove it is public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I will try and upload it as such. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

how can I post my image

Hi,

a while ago, I posted an image. It has since been taken down twice.

Why has it been taken down? How may I post the image again?

Thanks!

Regards, Fengting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fengting (talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are User:Leefengting, this has already been explained on your talk page [1] "I've removed the image and nominated it for deletion. It is a copyright violation. The image actually says so right on it. Images uploaded to Wikicommons cannot be copyrighted. If you know the actual owner of that image, you can ask him to release it into the public domain. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)"

AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Is close paraphrase of a diagram+graph a copyvio?

There's a clever (black and white) illustration of a glow discharge; it shows the glow discharge tube (with names of the electrodes and discharge regions) above and graphs of 7 significant parameters below that use the same x coordinate. The arrangement of the family of graphs is clever. The image is found at (sorry, I don't have a web accessible version)

• L. B. Loeb, Fundamental Processes in Electrical Discharges in Gases, 1939, New York: John Wiley, fig 269, p 566.

Another book, Applied Electronics, 1943, John Wiley, reproduces the image at page 145 (figure 12, Appearance, nomenclature, and distribution of quantities in a glow discharge) and states it is reproducing the image with permission with a full citation to Loeb. (Google has a snippet view of the next edition, but it doesn't show the graph.)

Commons has a similar an SVG version at File:Huumlahendus karakteristikud.svg. (22 January 2012) (Name is Estonian for "Glow discharge characteristics".) The glow discharge tube is stylized but regions are not marked; it graphs 4 parameters below the tube schematic; individual charges and currents are not plotted. It adds a negative glow line. (Valdmann, own work, Public domain.)

Commons has a similar color illustration at File:Huumlahendus karakteristikud.png. (23 January 2012) It drops the negative glow line but is otherwise the same as the SVG. It is by the same SVG author. (Valdmann, own work, CC Attribute Share 3.0)

Commons has a similar color illustration at File:Glow discharge structure - English.svg. (24 October 2013) It graphs 6 parameters (light intensity is not graphed), but puts them on three dual-plots. There are small differences in the plotted values. It has both a negative glow line and an anode glow line. (Chetvorno, own work, Public domain.)

Do these diagrams infringe Loeb? Chetvorno cannot infringe Valdmann because Valdmann's SVG disavows copyright, but if Valdmann infringes Loeb, then it seems that all illustrations infringe.

Loeb's graphs provide data; there are small variations from Loeb's graphs (e.g., Loeb's intensity does not go to zero at anode; Loeb has field strength inflection point near cathode), but the shapes are remarkably similar.

@Chetvorno: Glrx (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Loeb still in copyright? If it was published in 1939 it should have been renewed in 1967. I searched the scans of the US Copyright Office's copyright renewal records for 1966, 1967, and 1968 on The Online Books Page and didn't find a renewal listing for it. In that case the drawing is PD. --Chetvorno^TALK 10:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Mulian_Saves_HIs_Mother

File:Mulian_Saves_HIs_Mother.jpg is from 19th century Chinese scroll, reproduced online at [2]

I'd like to use it here, which I will soon move to mainspace.

Is this OK?

Cheers, ch (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think so. It really depends on when and where it was first published and rather than keep "Original publication: not published" on the file description it would be better to include the discussion about 19 century unknown creator and "acquired it in Taiwan in the early 1970s although it was probably brought over from the Mainland during the Nationalist exodus in 1949."[3] And, as well as linking to that provenance page, also give the exact URL of the image http://academic.reed.edu/hellscrolls/scrolls/Aseries/A10/A10c.html It is, I suppose, possible to contrive highly artificial circumstances where it might still be in copyright in the US. I should go ahead and if anyone objects try to deal with the objection. Thincat (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be an easy way of contacting the person who now owns the scrolls and who created the web site.[4] Thincat (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Photo Use

Hi,

I made a collage of photos and included a photo from a google search that I hadn't realised was originally posted on wiki and the photographer has asked for permission to be given to use the photo. As I didn't take the photo direct from wiki I never saw this request from the photographer. The photo has not been on my website for 2 months and I just received an email today asking for me to pay $200 for the use of the photo from the photographer. It was an honest mistake on my part, and I am no longer using the photo. I also am not sure where he came up with the figure of $200 as that seems excessive considering I could buy a photo from shutter stock for $10. I am wondering if this is a scam. Please can you help. Thank you!32.209.240.166 (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately we cannot offer you any legal advise in this regard. For that you really need to talk to an intellectual property lawyer. What image was it? If the image you are referring to was hosted here, or on the commons, under a free licence from the photogarpher you could have used it freely depending on the actual licence. We would have no idea if it is scam or not. Sorry to not be more helpful. ww2censor (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Paraphrase of an image

Polish cryptographers developed the Cyclometer in the 1930s. The machine was destroyed when the Germans invaded Poland, so few people have seen the real thing. After the war, Lisicki befriended Marian Rejewski (one of the surviving cryptographers) and got information about the Polish machine. Lisicki published a chapter in a 1979 book that included an illustration of the machine; Lisicki is credited with the reconstruction. That chapter is republished with permission here; see figure at page 78. A Rejewski published an article in 1980 that includes a very similar illustration of the machine (uncredited); a translation was published by the IEEE in 1981; IEEE republished here see p. 224, figure 5.

WP has a drawing of the Cyclometer claiming public domain: file:Cyclometer4.png. It seems that this drawing must be a derivative work of either Rejewski (Rejewski is the source of the machine's appearance) or Lisicki.

@Matt Crypto: Glrx (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The elements may be the same but you can not copyright an arraignment of an actual object. E.g. Canada is north of the US. Does that prohibit anyone drawing a map with the US to the south or Canada to the north. The orthographic projection is not copyrightable. It is the most common view. The style does not (to my mind) show any resemblance to that of the author of the source you mention. So it dose not to fall into the category of a derived work either. If it was otherwise, then the first person to draw anything would have copyright over anyone else drawing it.--Aspro (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

How to license a map based on IUCN Red List map

Here are examples:
File:Southern flying squirrel distribution.jpg
File:Northern flying squirrel distribution.jpg
How to license these images ?
Darekk2 (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what is the question being asked. Both files are published under a CC BY SA 3.0 license, which means you are free to use and modify them as long as you give proper attribution. Note that if you change the images you must publish the modified work under the same license. Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright licencing

I have an image on wikapedia but I'm unsure of which license I I should use. I gathered all the information and images myself on the image. The images on the image are from google search, the image itself was created on Microscoft powerpoint but I wasn't allowed to put a pptx file on wikapedia so I used a tool called snip get an image of it turning it into a PNG file. The information on the poster I wrote some my own words, some in my own words but from secondary resouces and some from secondary resources. So which licence should I use? "Pollution poster" 115.188.12.234 (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Due to copyright restrictions you cannot upload an image unless it is your own work, in the public domain, or freely licensed. This means that you cannot take images from the internet, make a poster, and upload it to Wikipedia unless each of those images meet the criteria just listed. Please see the policy at WP:IUP. Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Portraits of Politicians

I'm not sure if we're allowed to upload portraits of politicians from parliamentary websites? If we can, what license does it go under?

This was what the policy was when I checked out the disclaimers.

"You may use our material on this web site and on any RSS feed provided on this site (except for the State arms, State or Parliamentary symbols, logos or crests) for personal, non-commercial purposes on our Standard Terms of Use (below) and on the basis of our Disclaimer."

DestinationAlan (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

To editor DestinationAlan: The policy allows only non-commercial use, which means it is non-free and must meet certain requirements for inclusion. Photographs of living people almost never meet these requirements, so they cannot be included on Wikipedia. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. - Two Covers

The question is whether having both covers in the infobox of Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U is acceptable fair use. If anyone wants to chime on at File talk:Super Smash Bros for Wii U Box Art.png (the talk page for the Wii U cover art), that'd be great. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Can Iuse a map from Wikipedia in my publication?

I was wondering if I can use a map about administrative regions of an African country in a publication? Apart from crediting the source, do I need other permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.86.186.79 (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Files can have a variety of licenses, so if you could provide a link to the file, that'd be great. If the image is in the public domain, you are free to use it for any purpose, with or without attribution. If the image has been licensed under, say, a Creative Commons license (e.g. CC-BY-SA 3.0), you are free to use the map in your publication, as long as you attribute the author. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair use or not eligible for copyright?

Could someone check a file I uploaded called Wii Karaoke U logotype.png, to see if it would better fit under {{PD-textlogo}}? It is all text, but the text is stylized with simple images in the whitespace of the Ks, O, and E. — trlkly 03:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

A US logo with text and some lines, circles and semi-circles complies with PD-textlogo. ww2censor (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

copyright tag

Hello good morning,

In regards to the Image copyright tags which on I can take, apart from crediting the source? File: Image - used as a supplement to the description of this wikipage. Many thanks, and merry Xmas! Lyngheiðr (talk) 11:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that the image File:APBCT.jpg comes from Handbook of Enemy Ammunition: German Gun and Mortar Ammunition: War Office Pamphlet No. 12 - The War Office 1944? It is a pity this link does not include your illustration as the quality is far better then yours. If so I assume correctly it was produced by the UK War Office all such UK government works were copyright for 50 years under crown copyright. Because it is now more than 50 years old you can add {{PD-UKGov}} unless my assumption about the publication is incorrect. You should add a fully completed {{information}} template to the file and then also add the template {{move to commons}} because it is a free image. ww2censor (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

No, its from the issuance No. 14 and the illustration is depicted on Page 20, which can be viewed on GBS (Google Book Search): FIG 9 and 10 Thank you for the very insightful clarification.

Best Regards Lyngheiðr (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:BUSM 1916 Shell casing manufacture.jpg

Greetings. The above file is stated to be of shells taken in 1916 in World War 1 in the British United Shoe Machinery factory in Leicester. It was scanned from Iain Howie's book Serving the Shoemaker for 100 years ISBN0 9536531 0 2 published which itself acknowledges the Leicester Mercury library. I believe the Leicester Mercury or the marketing department have taken all the photos except possibly ones taken for There are no details of the photographer and no copyright makings. Given the factory has gone & its workforce dissipated, I don't see any likelihood of unequivocal proof that this was never copyrighted. However I believe :-

• It qualifies under UK copyright as being over 70 years after creation or publication
• It was produce before 1 June 1957 (the date on which the Copyright Act 1956 came into force in the UK.
• It qualifies for fair use -as previously claimed.

Could you please advise as there are other pictures in the same article with the same status, thanks in advance JRPG (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment.

Source describes corporate photograph album with images c 1916: http://www.sdsa.net/images/WW1-SPSF/Resource%20Pack%203%20Research%20Guides%20-%20Factories.pdf

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/accessions/1998/98digests/business.htm Draft company history 1960s

Glrx (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Two questions:

For article on David Tannenberg

• Is the image of the signature PD eligible? Is it Fair Use? He died in 1804. I doubt that it was "published" (ie posted on the web) prior to modern times, by some heritage organization or such, unless in a book that I have not yet found. Are signatures "copyrightable"? There is another copy of the signature on the web site of one such organization.
• Snippets of music recorded on the organs that he built: should they be uploaded as Fair Use, if no released copies are available?

Thank you. Gaff (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

1. A signature that old would almost certainly be public domain whether published earlier or not.
2. snippets of music would be covered by whatever the original copyrights and performer rights applied. Fair use might apply if you can make a persuasive argument about how the sound improves understanding of the topic. However if the organs still exist then someone could make a free recording and so the policy would not allow its use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Vox logo PD-logo?

Does this logo qualify for PD-logo? czar ⨹ 04:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes. It's just the name in a "generic" font, which they even use on their homepage for other things. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Italian Coastguard

What is the copyright status of photographs taken by a member of the Italian Coastguard (Guardia Costiera) during the course of their duty please? Mjroots (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Photo of a sketch unknown info

Hi, I uploaded a PDF of a copy made of a copy of a copy of this family tree. The person I got it from and her family has passed away years ago. She was allowed to photo copy the image from the homeowner who had a framed copy on her wall. That's the best I know. The latest date I can find on the sketch is a 1981 entry in the upper left corner.

I'm beginning to wonder if I did this right. I'm trying to find an original copy https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Copy_of_family_tree_sketch_John_Gustin_1586-1981_Inc_James_Calvin_Sly.PDF

I would like to post this on James Calvin Sly's wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizleflop (talk • contribs) 21:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Given the 1981 date on the corner, we'd have to assume that it is still copyright of the person who created it, and accordingly can't be used without their permission. I'm not sure it would be much use in an article anyway, as we have no way of verifying that it is correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)