Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/July

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:37, 21 July 2012 (Robot: Archiving 4 threads from Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Budkin_Petr_Ilyich

All of the images uploaded and put on this page have been tagged as own works, which they probably are not (if they are works of the author--Ilyich--in question). I'm not terribly sure what happens next...Do I nominate for deletion? Re-tag? Any help is appreciated. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 12:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be right so I've notified the commons user problems page because the images are hosted there. A deletion request has been started here if you want to comment. ww2censor (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the help and directions :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 02:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I have created a page about a living person. He has an image for which he has the copyright and he has specifically requested that I use this image in the article. He has given me permission to use the image.

What do I need to do to satisfy copyright rules and upload it onto the page?

Please can you reply to my "talk" page

Thanks Karendawes Karendawes (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We need a lot more freedom, than giving you permission to use the image. An acceptable license to grant is the CC-BY-SA-3.0, and the procedure to follow is in WP:PERMIT, as this person will have to prove that they do grant permission in writing, and also provide some sort of proof that they own the copyright, eg if it is apicture of themselves that someone else took. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Using a file on the Dutch wikipedia

Can I use [this file] on the Dutch Wikipedia? On this page: International Invitational Hockey Tournament Londen 2012. I really don't how to act with logo's.

Thank you, Eoosterhof (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Legally you could use it under fair use on an appropriate article, but you will have to check with nl wikipedia policies that we here do not know. I can't find an interwikilink from WP:fair use. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use does not give the policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
See m:Non-free content: Dutch Wikipedia does not allow fair use files. In order to use the file on Dutch Wikipedia, you need to obtain permission from the copyright holder, see WP:CONSENT. Note that nl:Special:Listfiles contains almost no files, so it seems that Dutch Wikipedia has the same image licensing requirements as Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Was this image incorrectly tagged?

Hey there. I ran across File:Georgia Salpa.jpg today which is being used in Georgia Salpa. Its description page on Commons says it is licensed under CC-BY-SA, yet the summary says that it was previously published in Life Magazine. Can both be true, or was the image incorrectly tagged? Thanks for your input. Braincricket (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Momo has to be the actual photographer, and have retained his rights, and be willing to license this photo under one of our acceptable licenses. With all due good faith, I am skeptical about this, based on my lifelong experience with both professional photographers and magazine publishers. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this logo copyrightable?

See the logo at myrunnings.com. It is primarily text, does the circle around the R make this copyrightable? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd play it safe and call it non-free - the curved parts leading to the circle take it outside of simple text and shapes. Still usable for a logo of that company, just need to mark it as such. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, will do. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Fred T. Perris.jpg

This picture is being held up from being included on the appropriate Wikipedia page because I could not supply its origin. I have learned that the original of this photograph is now in the possession of the Perris Valley Museum Historical Archives, located in Perris, California. It was created in San Diego about 1880. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiljensen (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Passport Photo of Srinivasa Ramanujan

re File:Ramanujan.jpg

There's a disagreement at Talk:Srinivasa_Ramanujan#Lede_Image concerning whether an image is a potential copyright violation. The image under discussion is a 1917 passport photo of the article's subject. There's also a discussion going on here concerning the same matter (but only one other person there weighed in). It would be helpful if someone knowledgeable could help us determine whether the image is usable. Justin W Smith (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the "old" image (the one at issue) was removed by another editor on Talk:Srinivasa_Ramanujan#Lede_Image because of the concern. Justin W Smith (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The image under question is not the 1917 passport photo; it is an image used on a 1962 Indian stamp. There is a side issue whether a 1937 photograph of the 1917 passport (with embossing) is just a copy of the 1917 image, but the "good" image is not the passport photo and is not even a photograph. Glrx (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How do I upload an image that contains a company's logo, but is not *only* of the company's logo.

Hi, I wanted to upload an image for the Wikipedia page, giffgaff. The image can be found here: http://ubuntuone.com/12eMppCgByaAbzEwnMwW14

It is an image of the phone company's sim card, as the one that is currently included in the article is out of date, and does not have the current design. The only problem is that I do not know which license to choose whilst uploading. The image of the sim card that is included in the article at the moment is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0, but surely due to the inclusion of giffgaff's logo, this is not the case?

Thanks for any help --Jackfifield (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am starting on the assumption that giffgaff's logo is simply that text-based string. If that is the case, the logo fails the threshold of originality that is necessary for artwork to be copyrighted. (In this case, it consists of text in a font, and has no other artistic features). For that, we can assume it is free.
That's only the logo. Now you have the actual sim card, and this is where things get iffy. If the card had no other decorations beyond the logo, a photo of it would definitely be fine to upload as a free image. But the decorations on that card front (the rounded squares, etc.) are edging past the threshold of originality (particularly that heart-shape they make). I'd almost argue that if you popped the sim card out and took a photo of that , where there are much fewer squares and thus less approaching original art, that would be treated as a free image while the larger card itself would be considered non-free. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there not anyway that it could fall under Fair Use? I could try to obtain permission from giffgaff themselves, but it could be tricky as they have many different ways to try to contact them, none of which would probably get me to the right person --jackfifield (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think that what a sim card is (from any vendor) can be done via existing free imagery, and an image that may have copyrightable elements on here would not be needed per WP:NFCC. I note that the current article image of the sim card is possible a problem as its marked free but I don't think it is (due to the artwork, not logo). But when it comes to things like threshold of originality, there's a lot of boundaries, and I'm only giving my take on it. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Myself, I'd be inclined to say just label the old one as to its approximate date; or don't bother with any image whatsoever. It's not important to the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File looks like a screen grab

please see File:Charbel_Nahas.png, which user:Zalali claims as a photo taken by himself ( no meaningful EXIF). It looks very much like a cropped screen grab from this conference video Charbel Nahas at AUB Part 1/6 from approx 4:52 onwards. Youtube uploader is Chab Nahas official channel, with videos noted to be taken by www.alberthphotography.com regards 94.195.187.69 (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a picture copied from an old library book published in the 1920's of Fred T. Perris who has been dead since 1917. I can't get through the welter of Wikipedia regulations to determine whether or not it is in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiljensen (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Which image are you talking about? All images uploaded here and on the commons should have a copyright tag attached to them showing its copyright status. ww2censor (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean you want to upload it? Assuming it's published in the U.S., it's public domain if published before 1923, or if copyright was not marked or renewed (which is rather complicated)—see commons:Commons:Licensing#United States and links there for details. —innotata 20:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bermuda currency

Would anyone know the copyright status of the currency of Bermuda? The Bermuda Monetary Authority does not indicate anything other than needing to obtain permission for reuse and various restrictions on reuse. Both non-free and free-licensed images of Bermudian currency have been uploaded before. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 16:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Family photos

Thank you for your help in clarifying copyright questions!

I want to show in a Wikipedia article I am writing photographs taken by my late father, for which my sister and I retain the copyright. I want to allow free (fair) use of the images in this article alone, but not give permission or authorization for free use of the same images not in this article. What issues might I encounter with doing this? And, should I indicate a copyright on the photos or not?

Thank you for your comments and ideas. Michael Olwyler — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldImages (talk • contribs) 03:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

All uploaded images must have a copyright tag attached and without it an image will be deleted, so please don't do that. We only accept freely licenced images, so as the heirs you must decide if that is acceptable to you or not. Free and fair-use are not the same thing; on Wikipedia free means that anyone can use it for anything (anywhere and even commercial use) while our policy for fair-use is much stricter than the legal understanding per WP:NFCC and your images will not pass the policy guidelines. In order to use your images you can release them under one of the very slightly restrictive Creative Commons licence that requires attribution. This is a list of all the CC licences we allow. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page for some of the wider copyright issues people encounter. ww2censor (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Celebrities at the Atelier Versace Show: M.I.A.

I want to upload an image of Maya Arulpragasam to the "M.I.A. artist" article. Versace released an image of the artist at the event on their Facebook page. I believe the picture is promotional and therefore could be used. The link to the set of images is here https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151889974760176.873378.260751060175&type=1

Is it OK to use this image of Maya Arulprgasam from the Versace Facebook page? The reason I want to use this particular image is because I want to put it in the fashion section of her article and it showcases this fashion because she is wearing Versace clothing. Any additional information would be helpful as this is my first time considering uploading and using an image in an article. Thanks. Headphones99 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Contemporary promotional images need explicit releases under what Wikipedia considers to be "free licenses", and in cases like this, where no such license is mentioned, it's not safe. Even something like "Free for any reuse" isn't enough, because we need an image to be available for modifications. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

GNU licensing question

I am trying to upload an image using the GNU license and don't quite understand everything I need to do for this to be possible. What exactly does the statement "The license statement can be found online at" mean? Does it mean that I simply need to add a link to the the GNU license statement, or do I need a link from a personal site that states that my images fall under this license? Any help would be very much appreciated. Neochichiri11 (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Normally for this license you would have to include the full text of the license, but you can just have a link to the text if you are online. If you have published this elsewhere on a web site, then please add the license to that site to prove that you really do have the permission to do that. Here at Wikipedia or commons you can use the templates to give the license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! Neochichiri11 (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Logo copyrights

In a Did You Know nomination discussion, the question has been raised as to whether a logo is copyrighted and needs a fair use tag. As the uploader and nominator, and based on some research, it seems to me the logo in question is not copyrightable, and it has been tagged as such, as the logo is a combination of copyright free logos criteria #2: "a sequence of letters or written words" and #3: "simple geometric shapes".

Here's a list of logos that are tagged ineligible for copyright: Blizzard Entertainment, Electronic Arts, Maxis, Valve, Atari, Nintendo, and Capcom.

Meanwhile, here are some logos that are tagged as fair use: Firaxis, Stardock, Ensemble, Ubisoft.

I think it's an interesting question, and worth figuring out, if possible, where the cut-off is in terms of simplicity for copyright ineligibility. —Torchiest talkedits 11:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

From my experience at Commons I'd say that this particular logo is actually not eligible for PD-textlogo. Anything that looks remotely 3-dimensional and that doesn't consist of plain 2-d typefaces and 2-d geometric shapes is usually thought to be copyrightable. See also Stardock's examples above. De728631 (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
There is unfortuntely no hard cutoff, as the only place where the threshold of originality can be tried is in a court of law. It is always better to play it safe and mark a logo non-free if you are unsure otherwise. As to File:Inscape-logo.jpg, yes, that's copyrightable; the fading aspects and use of transparency put it beyond simple shapes and fonts. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the answers and explanations. —Torchiest talkedits 14:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Old photograph published in recent book

I thought I'd get some advice on an image before uploading. I want to scan a higher quality image for an article on Paulding Farnham I'm working on (still in sandbox) to replace a poor quality but PD image. The image was published in 2000 as part of John Loring's book on Farnham, but the picture is of Farnham's 1889 exhibitor's photo ID pass for the Paris Exposition Universelle (the photo [1]). Is this old photo regarded as a previously unpublished/private collection photo or since it technically was exhibited in 1889 can it be uploaded? No author is credited in book and I assume the picture was taken in France or in the US shortly before the Exposition. Froggerlaura ribbit 20:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I've never seen one, there have been a number of deletion requests today for images like this one, based on the rationale: ". A copyright notice could have been placed on the back of the photo."

Another one so tagged, here, is typical in that it has all the relevant details, including the name of the film and studio on the front. The only information printed on the reverse of such obvious publicity photos that I've come across are film details, as in this example. Hence, a new rule is possibly being created, as already noted on my earlier question relating to the Commons, which is repeatedly deleting such images that don't also show the back.

In any case, these tags, based on such "remote possibilities," would, IMO, fly in the face of logic and the established law, besides the common use of such star "publicity photos," as noted in film still. It would actually imply an industry-wide oxymoronic marketing system, where studios spend millions to photograph stars to give away in press kits to get them free exposure, while at the same time sticking a copyright notice on them to make sure they are not copied without permission or payment first. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If the question is valid and there is no clear answer, maybe someone can try to slow down the multiple deletion requests pending based on that rationale until there is some consensus, at least in the EN/WP. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

In such cases baring any other evidence (eg other examples that show the copyright is frequently printed on the back), I would work under the assumption of good faith that the uploader is not lying about the nature of the image, and thus the evidence that the back lacks copyright is not required. That might not fly on commons where absolute proof of free-ness is generally necessary, but I can us using that on en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that the user already has had lots of images deleted on Commons for exactly the same reason. See Commons:User talk:Denniss#Verification requested for multiple images deleted without recourse for details. When the uploader learnt that Commons doesn't want copyright problems, it seems that the user tried to export the copyright problems to English Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, rather than continue to export the images to Commons, which defers to the strictest "possible" international interpretation, I asked above ("Adding PD images to EN WP vs. commons"), if I could simply keep them here so at least EN/WP users can benefit.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
If it's wrong to mention this, please delete my post. We hope (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how a copyright notice has to prevent redistribution or require payment. Remember we generally disallow such promotional photographs nowadays when the copyright clearly hasn't expired because we're aware although the copyright holder may allow redistribution to some extent, they may not necessarily follow the conditions of a free licence, e.g. they may not allow all possible derivatives and possibly even some forms of commercial use. In other words, I don't see why you think a copyright notice could have been printed which allowed redistribution. How likely this is I don't know. As for Masem's comment, I may be willing to AGF if it was actually a matter of lying. But I'm confused, if the uploader has access to the original photo, can't they just upload the back? If they don't actually have access to the original photo, then I don't see it's a matter of lying, the uploader may simply be unaware. Nil Einne (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What country's copyright would apply to works published in the Dutch East Indies (modern Indonesia) during the Japanese occupation (1942-1945)? If Japanese or Indonesian, visual works from this period would be public domain, but if Dutch law applied works would possibly still be copyrighted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it normal to wait this long for OTRS?

I wasn't sure whether to ask this at the OTRS noticeboard or here, but ultimately decided here. According to File:PNHP poster.jpg, the file was expecting OTRS permission in November 2011. Despite this, if I understand the OTRS ticket numbering properly, nothing was received until February 2012 and that didn't actually confirm the copyright status so we're still waiting for evidence of permission now. Is this normal? I note that the image copyright info is confusing. It has a CC-by-SA 2.0 tag yet under permissions it says 'promotional; free to distribute' which doesn't sound like a clear cut case of CC-by-SA or for that matter a free licence. Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not permitted to reveal the specific details, but I can share the general sequence.
An email was received at OTRS in February with a statement of permission. However, as is often the case, the permission did not use the prescribed format. Even in those cases, if the permissions statement is clear enough, we can process it. In this case, the permission statement was not sufficient and OTRS agent sent a response, in February with a boilerplate response telling them what was needed, and providing a ink to suggested wording. No further communication has occurred.
It would only be my speculation, but one possibility is that the recipient glanced at the boilerplate and thought it was an acknowledgment, rather than a statement that it wasn't sufficient. The item is marked closed, meaning we are waiting for them, but they may not realize this.SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I was going to suggest a note to the uploader, but I see the uploader is blocked, so that doesn't sound helpful.SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletion on Commons

Not sure if this is the best place to post, but I wanted to warn that there is a copyright review in progress on Commons which will result in the deletion of probably 95% of the tens of thousands of files to be reviewed. The review is necessary due to a recent German court case, where it was decided that § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG only applies for literary works (Sprachwerke) and not for works of the visual arts (Werke der bildenden Kunst), which means a number of Commons PD templates are no longer correct. This review is being done via commons:Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, and files are being placed temporarily in commons:Category:German stamps review delete. As the largest fair use project, it would make sense for English Wikipedia to try to "rescue" files that need to be deleted for use on a fair use basis here (other fair use projects can then copy from here later on). Is there any good way to organise this?

Also, although most of the affected files on Commons originally came from German Wikipedia, there are some English Wikipedia PD templates affected by the same ruling. I've found {{PD-German Empire stamps}} and {{East German Post}} (both now invalid; not in use by any files right now) and {{PD-GermanGov}} (still valid for some uses but not all the ones we thought; about a dozen transclusions). There's also {{PD-Coa-Germany}} which I'm not sure about. Rd232 talk 22:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My reading would say that unless they fall into the PD via age, we (at en.wiki) would also be treating these as non-free. If that is the case, we should see if its possible to get a list of which images are used in en.wiki - hopefully small - and do as you say, rescue those that are being used, though I would say to rescue them first, then ask questions if they truly meet the NFCC later. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I have proposed the stamp templates for deletion since they aren't used for any files anyway, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 10. Commons requires files to be both {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} (or {{PD-URAA}}) and {{PD-old-70}}, but English Wikipedia doesn't have the {{PD-old-70}} requirement, so it might also be possible to save some files that way. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding PD images to EN WP vs. commons

I've posed a number of copyright questions to the Commons village pump, but there is little response. Assuming that there is no resulting clarification about some informally disputed deletions, am I allowed to instead upload the images to the English WP, naturally using valid licensing? Although most of the images deleted there are of U.S. origin and clearly PD here, some editors in the Commons prefer to go by the strictest international interpretations, and either ignore or minimize U.S. copyright law. In one such image, for example, the admin cited what they thought were EU rules, simply brushing off the U.S. law. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as copyright is concerned: if an image is public domain in the US, it may be uploaded locally regardless of its copyright status anywhere else. Just bear in mind that the scope of commons is broader then en. Files uploaded locally should typically be uploaded with the intent to use them in a at least one specific article/page. You may also want to tag them so they aren't copied back to commons and deleted. Monty845 01:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The images would probably deleted here as well as the only proof for the {{PD-US-no notice}} license is your vague description and claim of publicity photo without copyright notice without providing sufficient evidence for this claim. --Denniss (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Many comparable publicity pictures' description pages have been updated with reliable sourcing for the PD status of the entire class of image, so if the images deleted at Commons were uploaded here, they would not be subject to deletion. Do you have access to copies of these images that could be uploaded here? Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
If you mean me, I mostly have only the final cropped image which overwrote the original uncropped images showing borders and sometimes the reverse side, ie. this one, I'm trying to salvage. But I don't have any of the original description text and source links as they were summarily deleted. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The images I deleted at Commons just had a vague statement that they are publicity images issued by studios together with a link to a site explaining the copyright situation. What they failed to have was the option to verify this claim as copyright notices may have been on the back or in the cropped-out borders. That's why many of these images uploaded to Commons under this special copyright excemption have been uploaded with an image showing the back of the photo in question to ensure there was no sufficient notice or none at all. --Denniss (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Not exactly: this image, for example, had both the front and back, since it was one where there was a film description included on the back side. I believe that most, if not all the images you summarily deleted showed the full uncropped border in the original uploaded photo. I typically crop out and clean up images and re-upload them. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for noting, "for the record," my previous errors, ie. the "Life magazine" one: discussed here. What is also worth "noting for the record," is that I explained the error when discovered:
"I think I found out the source of the problem. The online search for "Life magazine" showed all their issues and renewal dates beginning in 1985 through the present. However, a search for just the word "Life" showed up the rest, once you go through 1,350 records, most of which are only called "Life", but not related to the magazine. Whoda thought? I naturally assumed the first search found all the ones renewed. I'm also aware that Life magazine stopped publishing a number of times and apparently starting up again recently, and thought that might have been related.
"FWIW, this matter could have been dealt with in a cleaner way. Without a renewal, the image would have been PD. So rather than all this bad faith attitude and innuendo being posted first, why didn't someone just find the renewal, post it, and say how they found it." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I realize that it may distress you, but it's important to note that there are reasons for your uploads to be suspect. This is not a matter of some arbitrary content removal on Commons which should be remedied by moving the content here without further review. You have, unfortunately, uploaded content on both projects that do not meet copyright requirements. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you implying that the back of every photo is required, regardless of any actual copyright search? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Look at the photo: File:George Maharis 1975.jpg. It would take more research to determine copyright (or public domain) status. Copyright status = Public domain status, right? --George Ho (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course it would. But that assumes the online source scanned and uploaded the back of the photo, making a search unnecessary. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the issue being pointed out is that when you, Wikiwatcher1, specifically are the uploader, due to past issues with copyright and uploads, that the AGF assumption can't apply, and they are expecting that if you do upload a image with the claim "no printed copyright" you provide the front and back to show that it is true. On the other hand, a user that has an established history of uploading images without problems, the statement "no copyright found on back of photo" will likely not trip any issues, though certainly it can't hurt to upload the reverse of the photo to prove themselves correct. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The search is necessary; see 1909 Act. Under old Act, a photographer can correct mistakes, and other copies might have had copyright notices. Unfortunately, no registration is done to notify mistakes. --George Ho (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Boerse stuttgart logo.png

I uploaded this image a while ago as non-free with a rationale. Does it meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection, or is it a PD textlogo? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it likely fails originality, thus could be tagged PD. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I tagged it so. Perhaps it should be transferred to Commons and a higher resolution version be created. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Transferred a file from the German Wikipedia to Commons, (see Wikipedia:Help desk#Transferring PD textlogo file to Commons) and that one is now being used in the article, as it is of superior quality compared to this file. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Minecraft 1.2.5 Title Screen - from Commons.png and all Minecraft related images

Would a full fair use really be necessary? It just seems like overkill, since the Mojang EULA says this: "You may create, use and distribute videos of you playing or using our Game for any lawful reason provided that you don't make any money from them." Which says that this is is for non-commercial use only.

But then also this: "You may also make money using videos and screen-shots if it is covered by so called “fair dealing” or “fair use” exceptions to copyright, such as where it is for criticism and review, reporting current affairs etc. In each case, you will still need to add appropriate additional content and credits where applicable." Which puts the page as it is now.

BUT THEN ALSO this: "..so feel free to make requests – and if you are unsure about anything you may or may not do, don't do it unless you get an OK from us first." and this: "In addition to the specifics set out below, where we do allow you to do something you will always need to add a credit as follows: Minecraft ®/TM & © 2009-2012 Mojang / Notch" Which would get the image probably deleted since it doesn't have that notice.

So what would be the fate of all of the Minecraft images? Delete or fair use? Longbyte1 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

They're basically non-free images (the language used does not put them into a license compatible with CC-BY-SA.) They need to be used within reason and meet NFCC. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
What a move from Mojang. I thought they'd allow their screenshots to be used freely with attribution. Longbyte1 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Technically it is this line: "You may also make money using videos and screen-shots if it is covered by so called “fair dealing” or “fair use” exceptions to copyright" that causes the problem. CC-BY-SA stipulates that as long as attribution is provided, any type of reuse can be done (monetary or not) regardless if it would be under fair use or not. Again, this is not saying we can't use Minecraft screenshots, just that they would be treated and handled as NFCC. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Gunsnroses002.jpg

Could you transfer on Commons? It consists of simple geometric shapes and text.--79.32.156.121 (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use justifications: see Commons:fair use. Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses are not accepted either. So, unfortunately, no, it can't be transferred to commons. Braincricket (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the IP has a point. But it is hard to tell if there is some sort of design in the background. Does {{PD-textlogo}} apply? Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
You might be right about {{PD-textlogo}}. It does look like there's something abstract expressionist in the background, though. And the art community seems to think Barnett Newman's paintings have crossed the threshold of originality, so I don't know. Actually, I only responded because I thought this was cut-and-dry based on the current licensing of the photo. I'm going to defer to more experienced editors. Regards. Braincricket (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I did some more looking it appears that the circle we can see in the image is just an imprint of the record. See this one which is just clean black. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
More importantly, it's not clean black, but it has non-black bits elsewhere from what this one does. Even better evidence to show that the non-black is a scanning artifact. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and tagged it with {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I just undid my edit, but I realized the image might be eligible for deletion. We don't have enough information to determine who owns the image. No source or author was given. If this was taken from somewhere on the internet, wouldn't the image be copyrightable even though the album is not? That would make this eligible for deletion under {{Di-replaceable fair use}}, correct? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Legendarium.jpg

Is this book cover really copyrightable? It's not an artistic dust jacket but it consists merely of plain typefaces and a unicolour background. I'd say we don't need a fair use rationale for this one but could tag it with {{PD-text}} instead. De728631 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, so I have moved it to Commons. Although Tolkien was British, this appears to be a US book, so we don't need to bother about any {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} stuff. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! De728631 (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

95 years after publication URAA

Cornell's website says that the URAA (i.e. files currently in the public domain in their source country, but were not in 1996) made the copyright term 95 years after publication. Thus I was expecting to find a tag which says that the file is a foreign work and 95 years have passed since publication. Is there one? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Before Copyright Act of 1998, the term was 75 years, and all other foreign works made before 1923 have expired. You can search works that were previously published before 1923. --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you explain further? Which term? Also template:PD-1923-abroad (deprecated on commons) suggests that files between 1909 and 1923 might be problematic - which they wouldn't be if there was a 75 year rule. I have a book by John Buchan (died 1940), published in 1909. What would the correct licence be? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, all terms, including of URAA, before Extension. As for the Buchan book from 1909, the book is out of copyright, obviously, because it was published before 1923. The pictures included in this book must be out of copyright since 1984 in the US, as well. You must, as well, upload this to Commons. As for licensing, in Commons, PD-1923 and PD-1996. As for the author, he died in 1940, so it is out of copyright in UK (and Canada) because rules are, respectively, 70 years in UK (and 50 years in Canada) after death. --George Ho (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Or, if text-only, then scan and upload everything to Project Gutenberg website, or copy all text to Wikisource. --George Ho (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
"obviously, because it was published before 1923"? It was published in the UK? Why have the PD-1923-abroad template then? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
PD-1923 applies also to "Works published outside the U.S. before 1923, except possibly in the 9th Circuit, then before July 1, 1909. PD-US-1923-abroad is specifically for the English Wikipedia whose servers are located in the US, so such images may be not be used outside the Unites States when the work is still copyrighted elsewhere. Commons, however, serves all Wikimedia projects worldwide, so a work must also be public domain in its country of origin. That's why there is no PD-US-1923-abroad over there. De728631 (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand how this all works in general, I've uploaded plenty of works in the past. But as we know, the URAA may have returned foreign works that were in the public domain in the US to copyright. I know the file is PD in the UK inow, but it wasn't in 1996. Thus it was one of the caught files by the URAA. So our answer must come from the URAA, which is a 95 year after publication point. Where am I going wrong? We don't seem to have the right templates in place. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Cornell exempts pre-1923 works from the URAA, fine – is this a flat basis? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Such a tag should not have a use before circa 2019, because the works published before 1923 generally get one of the PD-1923 tags. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

About the 1909-1922 problem: there is some theory that publications outside the United States, and in a language other than English, don't count as "publications". Some examples:

  • Let's say that a book was published in French in France in 1910, and it was later published in English in the United States in 1911. According to this theory, United States law says that the first publication of this book was in 1911. Thus, according to this theory, the copyright expired 75 years after 1911, not 75 years after 1910.
  • Let's say that a book was published in French in France in 1910 and that it hasn't been published anywhere since then. According to this theory, the book is currently unpublished, so it may still be copyrighted in the United States, since the copyright term for unpublished books is either life+70 years or creation+120 years.

There was some case where a US court said that this theory is possible in some parts of the United States, but possibly not in other parts of the United States. The general assumption on Wikipedia and on Commons is that this theory doesn't apply and that all works published before 1923 are in the public domain, regardless of where they were published. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Grandiose, what language is that 1909 book? --George Ho (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
English. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
First published in English, right? Not any other language? What title? --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, only in the UK and I don't believe the US within 30 days (it's a history of Brasenose College, Oxford). But I've pretty much answered my question; the only part really remaining is why pre-1923 (or possibly 1909, a separate issue) works don't fall under the URAA. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The Copyright Act, in its URAA-related provisions, attributes to those works that were published outside of the U.S. the same copyright term that applies to the works published in the U.S. that complied with all the copyright formalities (notices, renewals) that were required by the U.S. Copyright Act [2]. It does not attribute to those works a longer copyright term than that. Such works published in the U.S. with copyright notice and renewal have a copyright term of 95 years after publication, unless they were published before 1923 [3]. So, the same term applies to the works that have a copyright "restored" by the URAA-related provisions. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Need help on adding a non-free image of Sam Malone

Yes, this person is a fictional character. However, I have trouble finding an infobox image that truly represents a fictional character. Photo 1, Photo 2, and Photo 3 are surpassed by a free image of Ted Danson, already used in Casting section. Any other image? --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Manliness2006.jpg

Is this image eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the bus film poster seen in this image ([[File:Pride & Prejudice London Bus.jpg]]) copyrighted? A query was raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pride & Prejudice (2005 film)/archive1. Thanks in advance for any help. Ruby 2010/2013 04:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Just for future reference, the concept you're looking for is called de mininis; it recognizes that we will sometimes unavoidably capture copyrighted works in photos but the amount, size, or focus of the overall photograph is not set on that work to ignore the issue of the copyright.
  • An example that I know is ok is File:Shibuya tokyo.jpg - while there are the copyrighted posters as ads in the BG, they aren't the focus of the photo and they are small enough to not be easy for reuse, thus the photo is still considered free.
  • The problem in your case is that that photo is clearly focused on the promo ad; the ad is certainly copyright, and the photo is focused on the ad, so that really isn't a "free" photo and should be removed from commons. --MASEM (t) 05:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2012/July&oldid=503401613"