Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/February

Copyrighted images and copyright notice not allowed on the English Wikipedia?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Binksternet and JAL78 have agreed that a copyright notice does not belong in a caption. Their content dispute is beyond the scope of this forum. —teb728 t c 06:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Will somebody please have a look at this. I added a picture to an article, but it was removed by the user Binksternet with the reason, that "No copyrighted images allowed, no images with requirement for copyright notice"[1] Is this true? I think Binksternet has misunderstood something. Many images on Wikipedia are not in the public domain, but are copyrighted and can be used under a license. If one think that copyright means "do never use this image" then one have misunderstood the situation. Does the English Wikipedia have a policy saying something like "No copyrighted images allowed, no images with requirement for copyright notice"??? --JAL78 (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We do allow copyright images, but the case here is that being a picture of a real-world object that is not a piece of artist work, we can reasonably expect a free replacement can be taken particularly since its used around the world, per WP:NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 03:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect he misused "copyrighted" to mean "non-free". Free licensed image are acceptable equally with PD. (Some of the helpers on this forum make the same mistake.) —teb728 t c 03:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see the root of the misunderstanding: You added a photo with a copyright notice in the caption. We put copyright notices on file description pages not in captions. (See WP:CREDITS.) The other user removed the whole image, not just the copyright notice. —teb728 t c 04:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:CREDITS says that no copyright notice should be placed in the article. The larger issue with the image in question is that it is part of a promotional campaign by JAL78 to replace Bösendorfer, Bechstein and other competitor piano images with an image of a Steinway & Sons piano. ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]) I reverted all of the images thus placed because of conflict of interest issues. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

– Yes, the credit does not necessarily need to be on the article page itself – that cannot be required by the copyright holder; having it on the image page is enough by most Wikipedia projects' standards. Binksternet said that copyrighted images are not allowed on Wikipedia, which is false. Binksternet deleted the image – not only the optional byline – and he wrote that "No copyrighted images allowed, no images with requirement for copyright notice".

– Binksternet's accuse of my edits being a "... part of a promotional campaign..." is just an attempt of removing the focus from the case about a misguided Binksternet deleting pictures, because he doesn't understand what "copyright" and "license" mean. And yes, I removed some bad pictures, including pictures of Steinway(!) pianos, and replaced them with this extremely good picture. There is nothing wrong or suspicious about that – it's actually pretty normal to replace pictures when better pictures become available; that is a part of making Wikipedia better, which is an ongoing process. And by the way, be aware that other editors revert Binksternet's edits.^{example here} --JAL78 (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You both need to take your edit war to the talk pages of the articles in question and let uninvolved editors decide which (if any) photos to keep. If you don't, you are likely to be blocked for disruption. With the subject edit of the present section, however, I fail to see why Binksternet objects to a photo of a Steinway D-274 on Steinway D-274. —teb728 t c 06:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-free book cover or public domain?

Regarding a DASHBot notice on my talkpage, as it removed an image from a sandbox article. I took this photo of a set of books published in 1959, but I listed the photo under {{Non-free book cover}} just to be safe. Given that these are new editions, and that the original publication of the books were back in 1908, and are now public domain, does this 1959 edition qualify for any copyright? Before anyone asks, why don't I just use a photo of the 1908 version: because I don't have the 1908 version to hand, and doubt I could afford them, they will be a rare collector's item now, and not bought to sit and flick through for Wiki. That aside, anyone with clearer understanding of book cover copyright law, in relation to new editions, a confirmation of where I stand would be appreciated: public domain or non-free until 2029 for this edition by the publisher? I'm aware the textual content is deemed public domain, so this refers purely to the items pictured. The covers have no design - just plain red, leather bound. The publisher's logo (of a house) is really the only thing we can see on the books themselves. That design on the case is also just a big wrap-around sticker, with a synopsis on the rear panel, but I'm not even sure if it is considered a "cover" or a label. The logo on that label was raised in a "helpme" response, as to whether it was used on the originals, as that would probably render it public domain. To answer that: I don't know, I have only ever seen photos of the various new editions, but am unable to find a photo of a 1908 original. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 15:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a short note about the sticker on the case. It mentions the introduction by Bell Irvin Wiley. As Wiley was born in 1906, it is unlikely that he wrote an introduction for the 1908 edition. Therefore, the sticker is about the 1959 edition. However, it is possible that its general design could have been reused from the 1908 edition. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it isn't unlikely, I already know he only wrote the 1959 intro, and someone else wrote another new intro in 1978. But any publisher could add 2 lines of text, under Dyer's credential, to an existing design.. that probably wouldn't extend them copyrights to the entire design any more than the new intro gives them rights to the entire book, right? But we don't know if they did that or not. Either way, I still need to know if the new edition, as pictured, is of a non-free or PD nature? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 17:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that the picture of the outside of a modern reprint edition does not contribute to any article to an extent sufficient to justify the use of this image. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

How's about someone please address my actual question instead of subjecting the image to scrutiny based on misconceptions and personal beliefs of no relevance.. it just wastes my time. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 21:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw your note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Free book covers (which is sadly inactive, but it started in my userspace and I still have it watchlisted). I'm afraid that this book design would indeed be considered copyrightable, even though there isn't that much content. If you can establish that the underlying engraving for the case label was used in the original 1908 publication, then my advice would be to scan or photograph the label alone. I know the spine design seems very minimal, but courts have upheld copyrights for things like that when somebody tries to bring out a book that looks exactly like a publisher's signature spine style. Chick Bowen 01:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have been unable to find a picture of the original single-volume release any where. There were only 4,500 copies, and it seems no one has ever taken a picture on one, only newer editions are shown. I don't think, going by a description, the original had any design or logo on the cover, so the case must have been produced especially for the 1959 edition, to house the set. No worries.. thanks again. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 01:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly Unfree Media

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am attempting to work with my local Transit Agency to get a set of images for specific stations that are currently listed as needing a photo. I would like to get a consultation regarding the viability of this section in the context of uploading the photos. Is the Use Policy compatible with the "free" portion and therefore able to be uploaded to Commons, compatible with the Fair Use policy, or should not be uploaded with the current Use Policy? I have not yet uploaded these images as I want to ensure the copyright/licence is acceptable before uploading. If I have asked at the wrong place please let me know where I should take it. I have already Come from WP:Copyright Problems. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If they are prepared to give a blanket permission for any purpose then there shouldn't be a problem. But as their terms read (particularly this bit: Permission to download, reproduce, use and distribute DART images for commercial purposes, other than news reporting as described above, must be requested from DART in writing) they are not totally free because permission would be required for every commercial use. I don't think that is compatible with Commons licensing requirements. – ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of. I guess the long form "This image for this page" request for permission to the agency will have to be the solution with a side order of OTRS notification is the way to stay out of trouble. If any other copyright image workers have suggestions I'll work with them. Hasteur (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like your best solution will be to get yourself down to the stations that need photos, take you own images and release them under a free licence, then preferable upload them to the commons. I very much think that any request will not allow their images to be freely licenced as we require. ww2censor (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that per the security policy that DART police have, individual photographers are not allowed to photograph the stations or trains for terrorism concerns. Since I've been informed of said policy I've desisted taking personal photographs of the stations. I'll try to get them to go free, but I'm sure they'll be willing to go to the level of non-free. Hasteur (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Permission to take photos is an issue between you and whoever controls the locations or the owner and in no way prevents you from releasing any images you do take freely if you can take them. I sympathise with your problem. ww2censor (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You say, "I'm sure they'll be willing to go to the level of non-free." That may be alright with them, but it would not be alright with Wikipedia: Any non-free image could be replaced by a free image that could be created; so its use would be against Wikipedia's non-free content policy. —teb728 t c 01:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a good read with respect to illegal and misguided restrictions on the rights of photographers, though I am, of course, not proffering any legal advice. – ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OP back, just wante to let everyone know that I got a special permission grant to take photos from publicly accessible areas from the Media Relations department. As I'm taking the photo I can go full out commons licence and share the photos. I consider the issue now closed Hasteur (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerning image

File:Snakewheel.png was uploaded in 2007 as pd-self (self created) where it existed unmolested for several years, until recently were the licence was changed to a non free/fair use licence [15]. Previously the image was only used in userspace. Now, would the image qualify for pd-self? Even if the file is self made it's still a recreation of copyrighted logo, that should pass the threshold of originality. If not, then can user made images be used as fair use images? Яehevkor ✉ 00:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have checked the book and it is not the same, and possibly not close enough to retain copyright. In the original, the snake head has more detail and is longer, the snake crosses the wheel on the other side, the snake is fatter, the wheel has a 3 dimensional look, looking down on top slightly. So whether this is a derivative (possible) or a creation that somewhat resembles the book symbol(possible). The book states that the snake wheel symbol is a trademark. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Spill

I wish to upload and use this image of Daniel Spill to give an illustration of him for his article. I believe this image is now public domain as the subject died in the 1880s but I don't know any details of when the picture was taken or who the author was. Is it OK to tag it as public domain without any of these details ? cheers. Mattg82 (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You will need to find out when and where it was first published as it may still be in copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

copyright and tagging issues noted on my User talk page

Hello,

These questions are related to issues brought up on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jgrossnas

With regard to the Entry Logo file- that must have been an accidental upload. I didn't intend to include that on Wikipedia.

Please detail on which Wiki page and which section of it the Copyright problem occurred so that I can address this.

For the DavidYarnold-thumbnail.jpg picture in question, that can now be deleted and removed from the Wiki database. I have a better, larger version of the photo here that I'd prefer to use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DavidYarnold.jpg

Thanks for your help, Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrossnas (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

On 3 March 2010 you uploaded File:Entry logo.jpg without a copyright tag and added it to National Audubon Society. It is still used in the article. The warning was added to your talk page on 24 March 2010. On 29 March 2010 you added a tag on the file description page, ‎File:Entry logo.jpg, which is all you needed to do for this image.

File:DavidYarnold-thumbnail.jpg has no copyright tag, and it will be deleted unless one is added, which apparently is OK with you. Does that answer your questions. —teb728 Ⓣ Ⓒ 07:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It could be more complicated. Versions of this photo (original or retouched) have been published on Audubon websites and on Yarnold's faceboook page. The original appears to have been taken in 2010 in Mexico [16], [17] or [18]. The facebook version [19] looks like it was retouched to remove the background. Those published versions do not seem to mention the author's name. The version uploaded to Commons looks further retouched to remove a hand and part of a head in the foreground of the subject's shirt, and to boost its size. In such circumstances, the Commons policy normally requires that the uploader sends a mail through OTRS to verifiably confirm not only that he owns the copyright on the derivative but that he owns the copyright on the original or was authorized to use it for creating a free derivative. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-free photo of Olivia Hack

Is she qualified under WP:NFC to have a non-free image of herself in either Star Trek Generations or The Brady Bunch (film)? --George Ho (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand: How do you think the use of a non-free image might significantly increase reader understanding of the article? —teb728 Ⓣ Ⓒ 06:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Is she most likely recognized as "Cindy Brady" from Brady Bunch movies? Well, no one recognizes this person, yet these movie audiences may recognize her as "Cindy Brady". An image may merely identify Olivia Hack as Cindy Brady with the hairstyle, her age, and the '70 dress. I will put an image into her filmography section if approved; what do you think? Look at Leonard Nimoy: it has a non-free image of Spock. --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I read her resume in IMDB. Her last on-screen appearance was 2005 or 2006. I would consider her on-screen career retired, but she continues her voice acting. --George Ho (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry... having trouble reading the copyright documents

Could you please help? I have two photos I wish to add to my page, first one is a photo taken by me of the Church, taken January 2012. The second photo I belive was taken of the Church around 1877 and was given to us to use as required. Which copyright tags do I use? Thank you in advance. Kate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katemulholland (talk • contribs) 04:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If you took the contemporary photo entirely yourself, you can choose any of the license tags at WP:ICT/FL. I recommend {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} unless you prefer something else. For the old photo use {{PD-Australia}} and provide whatever information you have about source and author.

While I am looking at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/St Dominic's Parish Melton: You seem to have copied the draft article from another website. While theoretically you might get a license to use the copy, doing so would just lead to other problems. Instead you should rewrite the article based on coverage in published reliable sources, providing verification of the content by references to those sources. —teb728 t c 06:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The AFC draft is a clear and obvious copyvio and I have tagged it for speedy deletion as such. – ukexpat (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo from NPS site

 Done

While reviewing a CCI, I see this edit adding this image File:CampDissapointmentB.jpg. The licensing indicates it is PD because it is the work of an NPS employee.

Perusing past discussions, I see that one cannot conclude automatically that any image on an NPS site is pd, so I want to make sure this one is OK. At the source, the caption states Photo from National Historic Landmarks collection. Can we conclude from this that it is taken by an NPS employee and therefore pd?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Found it at http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NHLS/Photos/66000434.pdf Marked NPS in the photog spot. Public Domain. Smallbones (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Rom Landau.jpg

Can someone kindly assist re an image of Rom Landau I have uploaded? I would like to incorporate it in the Rom Landau article, but don’t quite know how to achieve this, or indeed if the image can be used on this media. Thanks. --Stephen Castro (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done in this edit. Note however that the image page is lacking an appropriate copyright tag. – ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. --Stephen Castro (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Jets to Zurich.jpg

I was told the image has no source, I got it off Facebook from the band's official page which they are happy for people to do. If I can be shown how to change the image's source I can correct this.

Imperious2780 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC).

Facebook images from band webpages are usually copyright to someone and without any specific permission or evidence the image is freely licenced we cannot accept it. You are welcome to ask the band to donate a freely licenced image for use here, if they wish. In that case get them to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Videos

Is there a way to download a Wikipedia video file and use it as an object in a PowerPoint slide presentation? My specific interest is the NASA video showing the Aurora Borealis from the International Space Station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.213.210 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Clicking on the video will take you to its file description page. If the video was created by NASA, there should a statement, “This file is in the public domain because it was created by NASA.” This means that you may use the video. If you right click on the video, your browser will give you a menu including an option to save the video to your hard drive. —teb728 t c 22:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)