Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J Milburn (talk | contribs) at 11:34, 18 August 2010 (→‎Headshots of actors / celebrities: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

Skip to the bottom


    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Click here to start a new discussion

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)


    Open Publication License

    Whether texts with licence OPL can be copied in Wikipedia?--Lucas Novokuznetsk (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The OPL will certainly let you copy the work into Wikipedia. However it may not quite meet the Wikipedia requirements, as it is not equivalent to a cc-by-sa-3.0 license. For use in Wikipedia the options of A and B must not be specified. (Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder; and Distribution of the work or derivative of the work in any standard (paper) book form is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder) There may be some extra restrictions such as the size and style of the attribution required, that are not the same as the creative commons rules. However someone who published under such a license is likely to be willing to publish under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, so feel free to ask the author too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    question

    how to upload our files in the wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheshtheindian (talk • contribs) 11:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Upload is the link you need. Make sure they are correctly tagged/licensed. Exxolon (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    However you are not yet autoconfirmed (editted enough times), but you can place a request at WP:Files for upload. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Photo of statue

    I took a photo of a statue of Jan Karski. What exact steps do I need to take to have the correct license on the photo? When I click on "Upload file" there is no "photo of a work of art" option, just stamps, currency, album covers, screenshots and such...

    I know that I'll need a fair use rationale. I'm asking about the license. Dismas|(talk) 01:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What country is the statue in? There is a chance that the country may have freedom of panorama, and the image could possibly be free. Otherwise, I don't believe an image of a non-free statue of an individual would meet WP:NFCC since there are free images of the individual, and we do not need to see a statue to understand Statues honoring Karski have been placed in New York City at the corner of 37th Street and Madison Avenue (renamed "Jan Karski Corner"[12]) and on the grounds of Georgetown University in Washington, DC. -Andrew c [talk] 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The statue is the one pointed out in the article. The "Jan Karski Corner" statue. Dismas|(talk) 02:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do we need to see the statue to understand the topic "Jan Karski"? the sentence Statues honoring Karski have been placed in New York City at the corner of 37th Street and Madison Avenue conveys the information fine with words alone, IMO. We generally are fairly restrictive when it comes to non-free content, as we are the free encyclopedia. Do you think the image would meet NFCC #8? -Andrew c [talk] 03:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it wouldn't pass NFCC #8. I'm aware that we're restrictive here. I don't think I've uploaded an image yet that wasn't threatened with deletion. I'm not a lawyer after all. Just an average guy trying to supply some pictures. I've uploaded about 8-10 images in the last few days. I figure that I'll be fixing "issues" with them for the next six months at least. Dismas|(talk) 22:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    French pete map.gif

    File:French pete map.gif - is this licence OK? It does say anyone can use it, as long as credit is given, so is it OK to assign it as cc? Should it be moved to Commons? Please inform Jsayre64 (talk · contribs) who uploaded it, and asked us to check in Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 August 7. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  04:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Image is currently tagged as PD as a work of the US federal government. Are there any other issues, or has this been resolved? -Andrew c [talk] 21:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think resolved, thanks; at the time of posting I just wanted to double-check because I thought it depended on the conditions specified and was concerned they might not meet the stringent requirements - but if we're happy that it is pd-gov, that seems fine to me.  Chzz  ►  02:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sheila Murphy in 2010

    I have licensed this photograph that I own on Creative Commons. It is titled "Sheila Murphy in 2010." I keep being takne in circles around and around. Cannot get this to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shemurph (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You have to add the text or template to File:Sheila E Murphy.jpg to indicate the license being granted, (You can use {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}), you have to say a bit more about the source. Unless you are Harrison Hurwitz, you will have to explain how come you have the ability to grant a license. One possibility is to use the procedure in WP:PERMIT to prove permissions is granted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anson Mills Building, El Paso, TX

    I have a post card of the Anson Mills Building in El Paso that is probably from the early 1900's. The card has C.T. Photochrom but no other ID. Can I post it with the new picture of the Anson Mills building?

    Vikki Treadway vikkitreadway@verizon.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.164.90 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Curious, has the postcard has been used? If so, the date of the postmark can show the latest possible date for the image; if it was used in 1922 or earlier, you can tag it as {{PD-US}}. Since you know that it's early 1900s, check for a copyright notice; if no such notice appears, you can tag it with {{PD-US-no notice}}. Nyttend (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Palace_of_Ichalkaranji.jpg

    Dear Sir,

    I have found this rare Photo Of ‘Palace of Ichalkaranji’ in very old book ‘Glimpses of Ichalkaranji’- by Mr. G H Goheen, one of the administrator of Ichalkaranji during British rule. I have no Idea about any copyright of this old book. I have some other rare photos of His Highness Shrimant Narayanrao Babasaheb Ghorpade who was a king Ichalkaranji. Kindly help me on this subject. I want to place this file on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichalkaranji . Thanks , Sachinvenga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinvenga (talk • contribs) 10:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • To figure out the copyright status, the first step is probably to determine when the photograph was taken and/or when the book was published. When there is no date given, it is sometimes possible to at least establish a date range based on clues in the photograph or in the text of the book. For example, you mentioned that he was an administrator during British rule; is there any indication that the book was published during British rule? That would mean pre-1947. Is there an indication that it was published before, during, or after Mr. Goheen's administratorship? In the photo, is anything pictured which was removed or otherwise changed before or after certain known dates? All of these would allow you to narrow down the date range. cmadler (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair use where the copyright holder is unknown

    Is it permissible to make a fair use claim where a file could reasonably be thought to still be under copyright, but the copyright holder is unknown. I'm specifically asking with regard to File:KaestnerErich.jpg, a photograph of Erich Kästner's face, signed by Mr. Kästner. It is currently indicated as non-free, containing a non-free rationale for use in the article about Mr. Kästner, which is the only place it is used. An editor recently tagged it with {{di-no source}}, which seems inappropriate to me. Either the image is no longer under copyright in which case we can use it freely, or it remains under copyright in which case we can only use it under a fair-use claim. Since the latter is the conservative position, isn't it reasonable to use it that way? What about the copyright status needs to be "verified by others"? Either it is non-free, in which case it is used appropriately, or it is free, in which case there are fewer restrictions and the current use is still appropriate. cmadler (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You've done everything correctly. The person who tagged it is saying that the URL where you got it isn't the real source of the image. There's no way that such a contention holds water: we don't delete images just because their sources rot, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying that a website is the source of an image that didn't originate in a digital format. Nyttend (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tsathoggua drawing

    Hello, anyone

    I'd love contributing in a meaningful manner to Wikipedia, but your interface is INFURIATING beyond words. I have rarely traversed a more ivory tower, incomprehensibe 'made to keep people outside' system. It is a total mess.

    In more specific:

    I have contributed an image I MYSELF DREW of Tsathoggua

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tsathoggua.jpg#filehistory

    I contributed it as fair use. If Wikipedia wants to use it, FINE, go ahead and use it. I uploaded it and I drew it. So whats the problem? I don't have a clue but clearly there is some kind of totally incomprehensible problem. If Wiki ants me to keep contributing, for peace sake tell me what I need to do to have this image used, but without the boundless arrogance and hostility, please.

    Please email me at dagonweb@gmail.com. I dont look at Wiki replies very often.

    What buttons do I need to push to have the image approved. And please do not send me on a 40 page FAQ wild choose chase, because I just don't have time for all that kafkaesque idiocy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagonweb (talk • contribs) 18:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for uploading File:Tsathoggua.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

    If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

    If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

    Yah well whatever. I looked at those links above and all I got was endless endless FAQs. Where is a utton or link I can push where I can do what it is whatever the hell I am supposed to do? I drew that pic of Tsathoggua like ages ago. It's my pic, I knowingly uploaded it. What is it I need to do to avoid having the lawyers throw a hissy fit? PLEASE email me on dagonweb@gmail.com wth a clear link where I can edit the image as needed. I simply cannot traverse the maze-like mess that wikipedia has become. Dagonweb (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagonweb (talk • contribs)

    I try to avoid email to keep what I do on wiki in the open. The problem, I'm gathering, is that Tsathoggua is a copyrighted character, thus your drawing is not an original creation and in theory is a violation of the copyright holder's, er, copyright. It doesn't matter that you drew it, it was based on something copyrighted and so that's a problem here on wiki!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A Work Of Government?

    Hello. I am not sure whether the logo of Santa Clara County Federal Credit Union is a work of the government (free domain) or if it has to be fair use - it is a federal charter, but I suppose it's its own organization. Thanks for your time! シ ☏ 00:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is definitely not a work of the government, it can only be used under a fair use claim. I'm editing the article a bit to make this more clear. cmadler (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus Talk ツ 21:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Usage of Wiki media images relating to copyright

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_b-KAtMpc80g/TD6Ql1VmfCI/AAAAAAAAAhU/qHc97MsjfmI/s1600/448px-Anne_of_Cleves,_by_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger.jpg

    http://www.statemaster.com/wikimir/images/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Lady_with_an_Ermine.jpg/280px-Lady_with_an_Ermine.jpg

    http://thumbs2.modthesims.info/img/2/2/5/4/8/1/MTS2_teru_k_492349_Ephemera_DollEye.jpg

    http://www.wga.hu/art/p/pisanell/princess.jpg

    http://www.naergilien.info/research/london1/VandA/Cast_Courts/Beatrice_DEstes_Tomb/beatricepainting.jpghttp://www.biographicon.com/images/Pisanello_015.jpg

    I would like to know if I can incorporate the above mentioned images into a larger artwork without infringing on any copyright, I will be

    a) Possibly altering the images b) using either the whole image or portions of the image as part of a bigger original artwork. c) Once it becomes part of a bigger artwork it could potentially be used for exhibitions etc. with the goal being to sell the work.


    I have noticed that for most of these links the copyright has already expired, in the future do I need to do research on each image in the Wiki media public domain (with regards to copyright) or is it safe to assume that I can use these images straight from the site? Lisa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmc1000 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize, but I'm quite new to this and don't know how to change it. I am a photographer and would love any help I can get with this entire "Wikipedia" thing. Best Regards,

    Michael Davis

    • Generally, files at Wikimedia Commons are free from copyright restrictions in the US, though they may be subject to other restrictions (trademark, for example) and use in other countries may be restricted. For files at Wikipedia, you would need to check the file description of each file. cmadler (talk)

    How do I determine the copyright status of this?

    I've been given notice that File:Culverhouse-83.jpg will be deleted if I don't provide copyright status, but I don't know how to determine it. I obtained it from a website, from which I have written permission to use it. It's from 1983, and to my understanding, photographs enter the public domain 10 years after their initial publication. Am I wrong about that? If it's in the public domain, then is there a "copyright status" anymore? Dementia13 (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You are mistaken. Copyright in a photo lasts as long as copyright in anything else. In the USA, this means until seventy years after the photographer's death (or 95 years after publication if made as work-for-hire). You need to find out who holds the copyright (the website might know; it will generally be the photographer, or the company employing the photographer, or whoever either of them has assigned it to) and convince them to release the photo under a free license (permission to use on Wikipedia is not enough). Algebraist 16:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because he's been dead for nearly 20 years, it's possible that we might be able to use the photo under a fair-use claim, see WP:NFC for details on that. cmadler (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's intriguing, but all I see is that photos of living people are unacceptable; I don't see anything that specifies that photos of dead people are automatically acceptable. This is why I don't usually bother with images: they're more trouble than they're worth. But I can't put up such a detailed biography page as this without including a photo, and since there are no photo sources for this subject outside of newspaper articles, I don't see how to obtain one without going to Getty Images and purchasing it. Dementia13 (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Photos of dead people are not automatically acceptable (that's why I qualified my statement), but it opens the door for the possibility. It still must meet all the non-free content criteria. cmadler (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If I could find a photo of him serving as a U.S. Ambassador, does that qualify as public domain? Dementia13 (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A photo of him as ambassador is not necessarily PD, but US federal government works are. (See Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works.) cmadler (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've spent a lot of time searching, and I can't find anything. This is time that would be better spent researching and writing. I took the photo out, because I don't want any disputes over it while the article's in the GAN process. Dementia13 (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ESA image tag

    I uploaded an ESA HRSC image I had modified slightly (I applied a stretch and converted it to a png), but the image was tagged for speedy deletion because I hadn't provided the proper copyright tag. My problem is that I can't find the proper tag to be used with ESA images. Does anyone know what tag to use?Rppeabody (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • If the image comes from ESA, they probably hold a copyright on it. I can't find any indication on their website to the contrary, so I don't think this is a free image that can be used on Wikipedia. cmadler (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure the images are usable. The website says:
    The publicly released ESA images may be reproduced without fee, on the following conditions:
    Credit ESA as the source of the images:
    Examples: Photo: ESA; Photo: ESA/Cluster; Image: ESA/NASA - SOHO/LASCO.
    ESA images may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by ESA or any ESA employee of a commercial product, process or service, or used in any other manner that might mislead.
    If an image includes an identifiable person, using that image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy, and separate permission should be obtained from the individual.
    If these images are to be used in advertising or any commercial promotion, layout and copy must be submitted to ESA beforehand for approval.
    Wikipedia fits all of these guidelines. Science images are designed to be available to the public; this is a clear example of the intended use.Rppeabody (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to be considered "free" they need to be usable for commercial purposes as well as allowing for derivations, neither of which the ESA allows. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of Illustration

    Dear sir or maam: 

     Is it possible to get a hi resolution file of one of your images?

    I'm a sign painter working on a project for a church and would like to use the illustration to make a digital print for the sign. The image is located on the following link. It is the illustration of St. Mary in a dark oval in the upper right corner.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)

    Thanks for your help, Peter Carbone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petnatcar (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The information for the image indicates it came from http://www.bridgemanartondemand.com/art/104827/The_Madonna_in_Sorrow
    The version on Wikipedia is 306 by 390 pixels. Perhaps bridgemanartondemand.com can provide a higher resolution picture. Of course neither Wikipedia nor I have any affiliation with that site. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Newspaper Article and photograph

    I have an old newspaper article from approximately 1930 that talks about a band and a performance. It also includes a photograph of the women in the band. I do not know the name of the newspaper, however it may be The Buffalo News. Am I allowed to post this newspaper article to a Wikipedia article? Thanks, Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESchultzDC (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Since it's after 1923, you should probably assume that it's still under copyright unless you find evidence suggesting otherwise. Which means that unless the Wikipedia article is about the newspaper article itself (I'm guessing not) you probably won't be able to make a fair use claim for the whole article. But it's possible that you might be able to make a fair-use claim on a photograph of the band if your article is about the band; see WP:NFC for criteria to consider. cmadler (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the name of the newspaper can be firmly established, then you can look for copyright renewals, but without that you pretty much have to consider it non-free and follow the guidelines cmadler pointed to. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pharmaceuticals

    Images like File:Propecia (finasteride).jpg show trademarked logos and packaging, and are solely focused on it. Are these considered derivative works? — raekyT 05:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well the concern was an admin went and purged a TON of similar images off of Commons claiming they was commons:COM:DW. — raekyT 14:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can only suggest taking that up at Commons; Wikipedia and Commons have different rules, though I'm fairly certain that files containing trademarked but not copyrighted images are acceptable there also. In fact, the Commons guideline you linked to specifically refers only to copyrighted works ("[A]ll transfers of a creative, copyrightable work into a new medium count as derivative works."). cmadler (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Badges

    Would these be derivative works? File:Scouting in Portugal Acanet 2003.png, File:Scouting in Portugal Acanet 2004.png, File:Scouting in Portugal Acanet 2005.jpg, File:Scouting in Portugal Acanet 2006.jpg, and File:Scouting in Portugal Acanet 2007.gif? — raekyT 05:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    They're all listed on Commons as public domain works, but I'm dubious. I think each of those is a derivative work of a copyrighted work, which would therefore be subject to the copyright restrictions of the original. I'll raise that issue at Commons. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that there was already a deletion discussion underway at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Insignias-acanet-2005.jpg cmadler (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Brook Lopez and Robin Lopez

    I've decided to upload a picture of both of the brothers Lopez for the 2008 NBA Draft because I feel that they're both notable rookies from 2008 that ended up being starters for their respective teams. However, I don't have any idea what type of copyright the image holds. I mean, I found it on Google and the picture I found it was on this website, but I don't know the copyright of this image, so yeah. - AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • In the vast, vast majority of cases an image you find somewhere on the web is not going to be acceptable here. The image source is from here, which does not contain a specific release of the image under a free license. Given that this image does not display anything of particular historical note, its use here as a non-free image is highly suspect. I've marked it as replaceable fair use; these two are still alive, and we already have free license imagery of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the source webpage clearly attributes the image to "Mark J. Rebilas/US Presswire" which is enough to indicate it as being copyright to a press agency, so we cannot use it. ww2censor (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So, are you suggesting that I upload a different picture of the Lopez brothers together? I'm asking because I still think it'd be beneficial for Wikipedia for the brothers to be listed together if the guys between picks 10 and 15 won't be listed as notable rookies. Before anyone would ask why Robin Lopez is a notable rookie, I'd say that being a candidate for the U.S. team for the 2010 Fifa competition in Turkey should be enough to make him notable. - AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What we are suggesting is that if it is important to have an image of these two people, together or separately, then you have to find a freely licenced image because the one you uploaded is not free and therefore not acceptable to Wikipedia. ww2censor (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should look at Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial in order to help you find a free image of them. — Martin tamb (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    File:MiamiHeatThrice136.jpg

    I'm not exactly sure who this image belongs to, but theres ample amount of evidence to suggest this isn't his. This User:Fredler Brave has a history of uploading copyrighted images from this very event and claiming it as his own.. and I've reported him on three separate occasions 1 2 3, yet he persists on violating others copyright. I'm honestly tired of his shenanigans and think he should lose his uploading privileges altogether.. he just doesn't learn from his mistakes and warnings/bans. -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is the second one I have deleted, and delete it I have. If he keeps it up, drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll consider a block because it dangerous to the wiki to have someone uploading copyvios.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do, thanks. -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 17:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Photo of medal in exhibition

    I am using File:1976 Innsbruck Olympic Winter Games medal.jpg in 1976 Winter Olympics medal table, currently a FLC. This, in turn, is a cropped version (thus derivative work) of File:Olympic medal Innsbruck 1976.jpg, a photo of an Olympic medal displayed at an exhibition. This photo was supposedly uploaded to Commons by its creator/photographer, under a GFDL/CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. I was asked if my version's license was OK, but then I began to wonder if the original image might not have copyright, being a photo of an Olympic medal, with a design that bears copyrighted elements (Olympic rings and Games emblem). I'm plain ignorant at these media copyright things, so I'd appreciate anyone's help. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Because they are common geometric forms, the Olympic rings are almost certainly not copyrightable in the US, and I suspect that the same is true of rest of the design on that medal, because it consists entirely of simple geometric forms (not copyrightable in the US) and text (fonts are not copyrightable in the US). The rings are probably trademarked and these images should be marked as such with {{trademark}} or equivalent, but for Wikipedia (and Commons) purposes, it's probably safe to consider them "free". cmadler (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Photo of trophies in football

    Hiya, is this file File:The_six_Barça_cups_.jpg considered a derivative work and therefore it falls under copyright? It is essentially the same question as above. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 21:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Christina Aguilera - photo

    Hi, I found this photo, the same as this File:Christina Aguilera MTV Movie Awards 2010.jpg. I'm not sure if it falls under copyright? Thx for help. --Jirka62 (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The identical source clearly attributes the photo to "PacificCoastNews.com" and I have nominated it for the deletion on the commons as a copyright violation. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamila M'Barek photograph

    I plan to create an article about the Countess of Shaftesbury. The article about her husband, Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury, contains two photographs of her. If I understand the rationale correctly, File:Jamila M'Barek on trial in 2007.jpg can be used only in the Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury article. Can anything be done to make the photograph available for the future article about the actual subject of the photograph? Surtsicna (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually there appears to be much over-use of non-free images in Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury including the image in question which really adds little to the topic and many of those images likely fail WP:NFCC#8, but that is another issue. However you might be able to write a reasonable fair-use rationale for its use in an article about her though as she is still alive it may be difficult to justify. ww2censor (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    New version / derivative work copyright

    What's the copyright of (GDFL-licensed) commons:File:Nes_controller.svg, as the latest version is technically a derivative work created by me based on the previous revision created by a different author? --STUART (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a commons images but the same solution applies, so as a derivative work the image retains the same copyright as the original because there is no creative input that would give you any right to a new copyright. Just apply the same tags are are on the original. ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Headshots of actors / celebrities

    This is a 2 part question:

    • If I'm the parent of an American actor and I hired a photographer to take a couple of headshots of him, am I allowed to upload them in Wikipedia?
    • If I upload the image and dual licence it under GFDL and CC-by-SA, is the image of him protected against use for unauthorised endorsements of products?

    Pavithran (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    First question: if the photo is taken in the USA, the rights to the photo belong to the photographer unless you make a written agreement with the photographer that the photos will be works for hire, and the rights are assigned to the appropriate person (you, your child, or you as trustee for your child).
    Second question: there are two issues:
    • the rights to use the photos (allowed, with attribution and with similar free licenses for further use)
    • the rights of the model, that is your son, to control use of his image for promotional purposes. I don't know how that would turn out. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Does it have to be a written agreement? I've always thought that the "work for hire" was implied in that I engage a professional photographer and pay them for their services in taking a photograph. Pavithran (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It really depends on how the work for hire (used here in the general sense) was executed. If they were a full employee, like as a newspaper staff photographer, then the employer would have the copyright. In any other case, there would have to be a written legal document of some sort in order to actually transfer the copyright. Simply contracting work from someone does not automatically make it a "work for hire" (used here in the legal sense) which would transfer copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To answer your other question, the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license normally used on Wikipedia and Commons authorises any use including commercial, as does the GFDL license, so if your son wishes to control the use of his image, you would not be able to upload under that license. More info at WP:DCM.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong. Yes, we would require that the image was released under a copyright free license, but personality rights are still retained. Just because an image is free for commercial use doesn't mean someone can use it to imply the subject endorses something. So, in answer to the second question, his likeness is still legally protected against unauthorised use to imply endorsement under US law. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    I was wondering what people thought about this pic here and if this is actually the persons own work. The quality seems just a bit too good. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    i see it has just been deleted due to copyright violation. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Crests for defunct Royal Air Force Stations and Squadrons

    Hi,

    I'm looking for advice on the correct way to tag the following images :-

    File:RAF Finningley crest.JPG File:616 Squadron Royal Auxillary Air Force S Yorks.JPG

    Firstly both of these entities no longer exist and are defunct. The purpose of adding this information to Wikipedia is for historical reference as the content of the images (i.e. what is contained in the crest) and their composition has historical and geographical importance particularly when applied to the relevant pages.

    These images are my property. I took them myself with my own camera, clearly they depict a design that is not mine however I took these pictures in a public location.

    I need advice on how to mark these images. The designs were created over 70 years ago in each case, the photos are new. Are these images United Kingdom Crown Copyright? Do I need to add my own copyright and the owner of the design? As these entities no longer exist is any of this still relevant.

    Hope someone can help.

    fy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fy (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes crown copyright will apply in these cases. And if they are over 70 years old, then it is expired and now in public domain. It would be best to load these onto commons and not to add your own copyright, but you should explain why it is now public domain. Use the template {{PD-UKGov}} on commons for UK government material over 50 years old. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, be careful about when the crests actually designed - while 616 Squadron formed in 1938, was its badge designed then or later - in some cases (especially earlier Squadrons, the badge wasn't awarded until later.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Photographs of a game board

    A number of editors express concerns about these images. I believe I have generated a new copyright because there are not trademarks in the images and I have created a new instance of "creativity" with the images with the ways I took the images. Can someone check to make sure my reasoning is correct? d'oh! talk 05:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey I have that game =]
    I think you have generated a new copyright, which means that reusers of the image would need permission from you and also from Mattel, or whoever published Atmosfear. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the board, games pieces, etc. would be under copyright by the creater(s) and/or company. Therefore, your images are derivative works which can not be considered "free". cmadler (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, clearly on that page it does state those images are not acceptable. I was actually about to mark them for deletion after reading that page, but looks like you beat me to it. :) Thanks for the link. d'oh! talk 14:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can re-upload one image under fair-use, what template should be used? d'oh! talk 08:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    clarifying copyright status

    Resolved
     – Image was PD. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have uploaded an image - File:Adm.logo.jpg‎ - with the correct copyright tag, yet the file has still been flagged for deletion. How can this be avoided?

    Aptw (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files#File:Adm.logo.jpg. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Aptw, the problem seems to be that you have uploaded the file as if you are the copyright holder. Are you the company represented by the logo? If so, you need to follow the steps at WP:IOWN. If you are not, then you need to amend that piece of information to say that copyright, if it exists, is held by the company. It is likely that if the company is US based, the logo is not copyrightable, as it just contains text, see WP:LOGO for more information and appropriate templates to use for tagging. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Thanks for the response. I have changed the tag, and have added information to show that it is a logo from WP:LOGO. The company is UK based, does this affect the information required? I have copied the example provided at WP:LOGO as those criteria do apply to this specific image, is this ok? Also, can the "possibly unfree file" tag now be removed? Aptw (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's a UK logo, it's probably copyright, so you should follow the instructions for a non-free logo. You can post in the discussion linked to above to say that you have done this, and that should solve the problem. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No. We don't apply UK copyright on questions of creativity, we apply US copyright law. (Compare the fuss over the National Portrait Gallery's images versus Bridgeman v Corel.
    Per U.S. law, this clearly doesn't meet the threshold of originality required, so should be tagged Copyright ineligible. Jheald (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fairly clearly public domain. I've tagged it as such. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Imperial War Museum

    I've just come across File:Auster A 2 45 VL523.jpg and File:Heston JC6 A2 45 VL529.jpg- it's claimed that they are public domain because they were under crown copyright, but I'm not really seeing why it is believed they were. J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=379566725"