Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/September

reply to media editor's question about a license tag

Thank you for writing to me, as follows:

"Thanks for uploading File:Great-zim-aerial-looking-SE.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information. To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "

I uploaded 2 images, File:Great-zim-aerial-looking-SE.JPG and File:Great-zim-aerial-looking-W.JPG

I thought I supplied the needed information and the images were assigned to a tag like ..."Attribution ShareAlike" I wouldn't know what agreement number.

The fact is that I am the photographer, I took the shots from a small plane piloted by my husband last month, and I want to share them for any use at all provided they're accompanied by the photo credit.

Please make any necessary correction to the tags, or tell me which one to mark if you can't do it for me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jncbll (talk • contribs) 22:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It was not us but the User:ImageTaggingBot who noticed that one of your images was missing essential details. It appear you also uploaded the same two images to the commons and they have the proper {{information}} template as well as a good licence tag. For that reason I have tagged the local images for deletion. There is nothing else for you to do. We hope you can share some more aerial images in the future. ww2censor (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Jncbll, I've deleted both images: not because there's something wrong with them, but because (as Ww2censor noted) you've also uploaded them at Commons. Images at Commons can also be used here (that's the whole point of having Commons), so there's no need to keep both copies around when they're identical. Your images are still in use, so thanks for helping us with them! Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Film poster from 1925

I would like to use the following poster to illustrate this article:

http://www.movpins.com/big/MV5BMTQ2NjgxODE2MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDA5MDgwMjE@._V1/little-annie-rooney-(1925)-large-picture.jpg

It would seem to fall under the same pre-1978 copyright rules as this file and this file] but this is my first time uploading an image to Wikipedia and I want to be sure. I suppose even if it is currently copyrighted, being the official release poster for the film, it could also fall under fair-use. Please let me know what you think. MargotThe (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

MargotThe, I think film posters indeed are good examples of fair use, but in this case, it's a clear case of {{PD-US-no notice}}. Please just upload it to Commons so that it can be used by other Wikipedias and other related wiki websites; if you upload it here at the English Wikipedia, it won't be usable except here. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Durham Speed Skating Club (DSSC) logo

If I were to use the logo at the top of this page on Wikipedia, how would I license it? Are there any exceptions that qualify it to be in CC0? —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 14:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Please ping me in your response. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 14:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Skyllfully: Normally non-free logos can only be uploaded for use in the infobox of an article when that article exists and not before. Such a non-free image must comply with all 10 non-free content policy guideline. CC0 cannot apply. You would need to add both these templates to the image file page {{Non-free use rationale logo}} and {{Non-free logo}} when the article is in mainspace. Click on these template links so see how to use them. ww2censor (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove this Tag?

"Remove this tag when you provide the information"

What does this mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryesbee (talk • contribs) 14:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to File:BackAnd logo 0824.tiff. Well you are required to provide the source and author information by adding a fully completed {{information}} template. as well as a copyright tag. Being a simple text logo for a US company you can add the tag {{PD-textlogo}}. Click on the template links to get information on how to fill them out. If you do that you can remove all the other prose and warnings but please make sure to provide ALL the fields for the template. Also please sign your posts by adding four tildes ~~~~ like this to your talk page and user talk page posts. ww2censor (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Photo of Sylvia Sayer

Sylvia Sayer died in 2000. A photo in her biography article would be useful, but I can't find a free one. User:RoadRunnerCwll has sourced a photo that may be eligible, but in the discussion on his talk page we can't decide whether it would be usable or not (and if so under what licence). Could an expert please have a look at the discussion and provide some wise advice? (The "DPA" that we refer to is the Dartmoor Preservation Association of which Sayer was chairman/patron until her death, and RoadRunnerCwll has admitted his connection, here.) Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  21:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that you upload a low resolution version of the photo here on Wikipedia under the terms of WP:NFCI #10. Provide as much information as you can about the origins of the photo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page linked above as well.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for those quick (and consistent) opinions! I did search the web for any other freely available photos, and looked in a few books and DPA publications too, to no avail. I'll upload a low-res copy here soon.  —SMALLJIM  21:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ageing Potion Picture

Is the picture of the ageing potion posted by hunnie bunn copyrighted? I would like to use this image. -swelsh10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.91.5.53 (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the image in question otherwise we can't help you. ww2censor (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Chesham Town Crest

Hi, I took this photograph File:Chesham Town Crest 01.jpg five years ago which appears on public display on the wall of the Town Hall building. It has just been tagged for copyrigyht infringement. Whilst if I had redrawn this crest from scratch I cold understand the potential for infringing copyright but in the United Kingdom it is permitted to take photographs of the outside of public (and private) buildings. Please couls someone explain the copyright infringement in this situation, and how I can address it. Many thanks. Tmol42 (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

While your photo is freely licenced, it is a photo of a copyrighted artwork and therefore is a derivative work which needs the permission of the copyright holder of that work who, in this case, is likely the town of Chesham. Unless you can prove the crest itself is in the public domain due to age, which in the Uk would be 70+ years pma. Do you know long has the town been using this crest? Hope that help you understand why you photo has been tagged. The freedom of panorama in the UK allows photos of buildings, sculptures, monuments and other similar such 3D items but not graphic works, such as this crest. ww2censor (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ww2censor for the clarification. The crest was established in 1961 as a revision to a long standing earlier crest so not long enough. May I trouble you further just to test something out with you? This crest is on the front wall of a largish building. Presumably an image of the whole building showing the crest as a small feature is OK. If one gradually focusses in at some point the crest becomes the main feature of the image which I guess is where the problem of copyright kicks in. So would it be OK to have an image where the crest forms only a subsiduary part of the image which displays the major part of the building? Tmol42 (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, 1961 is too short. You are referring to the de minimis use which is rather subjective but a ballpark figure in my thinking would be less then about 20% of the entire image. Others might consider this too much. Obviously an image showing the building or a substantial part of it and not just a wall with the crest as a small proportion. ww2censor (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It is also a function of how prominent the copyrighted part is in the image. A photo of a road with a copyrighted street sign at the edge of the photo may be de minimis while one with the sign in the centre of the image may not be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Public domain? Fair use? Or forget it?

I'm writing an article about a newspaper that was published in the 1940s. It was originally a POW paper, published under the direction and control of the US military and distributed to German prisoners in POW camps in the U.S. It was a propaganda tool to re-educate the prisoners and encourage them to adopt democratic ideals. After the war it continued to be published in Germany for a brief time.

I would expect that the issues published in the U.S. during the war would be in the public domain as works of the U.S. Government. Archives of them are apparently held in the National Archives. this website has uploaded a scan of one issue. My inclination is that I should be ok uploading that to Commons as pd-us and using it in the article.

The German Wikipedia article on the same newspaper has an image of the masthead of the post-war version of the paper. It is tagged there as being public domain because of not being creative enough to be copyrighted. However, there's a big scary box saying not to upload it to Commons. They seem to have nabbed the image from this website. My inclination here is agree with them and transfer it to Commons and use it in the article as well.

Another thing about the post-war one; I believe (but my sources aren't entierly clear) that the US military continued to exercise some control over even the post-war version of the paper. They seem to have fired Andersch. So perhaps even the post war version would be PD-US? I'm not sure.

That said, I'd be far more comfortable if they were older and I could use a pd-old reasoning. I'd like to get a second opinion. Am I ok using these two images as public domain images in that article? If not, I'm pretty sure I can craft a fair use argument for one, but it probably wouldn't fly to use both. What do other people who are more well-versed in copyright think? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll check this one shortly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. PD-US on Commons does not apply; these images and works are too recent. PD-USGov would presumably apply if Andersch was a government employee and not a contractor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ooops, I meant PD-USGov. Prisoners were paid for their work in POW camps, including on the paper, but I'm not sure one would consider them either an employee or a contractor. Like I said, the post-war situation is a little more murky. At any rate, thank you for the feedback, I'll go ahead and upload them as PD-USGov. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

1. About the scan of the page at smallstatebighistory, the catalog entry of the National Archives for this publication does not help, as it merely has what looks like a boilerplate warning that researchers should evaluate the copyright situation themselves. The paper says that it is edited and prepared by German prisoners of war. It would seem difficult to say that Germans soldiers during World War II were regular employees of the government of the United States. Or that their presence in the prisoners camps was the result of a freely consented contractual arrangement. There might be the possibility of C:Template:PD-US-no notice, if you have a way of checking the whole issue and looking if it had a copyright notice.

2. The warning box with de:Datei:DerRuf Titelkopf.JPG does not forbid upload to commons. It is a reminder to review the file individually to determine if it can be uploaded to Commons. That file is the sort of image that would normally be accepted on Commons with the tag C:Template:PD-text or the tag C:Template:PD-ineligible. You can compare with some images in the C:Category:Newspaper logos. For more details, you can see also C:Commons:Threshold of originality.

For more opinions, you can also ask at C:Commons:Village pump/Copyright‎. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I should probably add a caveat that I was operating under the assumption that Andersch would be the copyright holder. If the prisoners would hold it, my previous analysis is only half true.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)