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)

Moving pictures to Commons

How can I get the following pictures, that have been tagged for such, moved to Commons ( Category:Shelby Gem Factory ). Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• File:ICTBuilding.jpg
• File:Skull Crucible.JPG
• File:Cubic Zirconia Run Opening.jpg

Just follow the links as displayed in the commons move notice for instructions. The most useful way being to use the Commons helper tool but before you do that those images require a fully completed {{information}} template (click on the link to see how t use it) listing all the details otherwise they may be deleted over there for lack of detail. ww2censor (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Godhra Train Burning Image.jpg

The image is taken from a committee report placed before a state legislature which would typically make it PD. However, the report itself sources the image to a person -- Minaxi Devi and in addition, the report uses images and clippings from newspapers too. Given the circumstances, would this image be considered PD as the tag suggests? —SpacemanSpiff 08:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you will find that the images used in the report are used under the fair-use principle. We have a non-free policy which is much stricter than the legal understanding of fair-use. You cannot assume that just because an image was used in a regional government report that is is in the public domain nor can you asume that the Indian government copyright act you quote from applies in this case because I doubt this regional report was laid in from of the Indian Parliament as quoted. Do you have some verification of that? However more importantly, as you even state, on page 135 of the report they attribute the photographs to Witness Minaxidevi (W-1008), so she owns the copyright and we need her permission to use them; the local government does not own the copyright and is not the author of the image. It might be possible to use it as a non-free image if no other image is available and if it is invaluable to the reader's understand of the article, but it must then comply with all 10 non-free media policy guidelines. For each such use it must have a fully completed fair-use rationale. The image File:Inside view of S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express which was burnt at Godhra on 27 February 2002.jpg may have the same problem but we don't even know who took those photos. ww2censor (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I took the current tag at face value reg the report being in PD as I was more focused on the image itself as it's unlikely that the copyright of the various images used transferred to the creators of the report. I'll alert someone from that image use area to this discussion to see if they want to add a FUR. —SpacemanSpiff 13:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

To prevent archiving for a few more days to give a chance for the uploader to provide more info and/or change to FU. —SpacemanSpiff 04:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Will this image be deleted?

Will this image of Nic Naitanui found at http://www.westcoasteagles.com.au/player-profile/nic-naitanui be deleted? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 10:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Is it copyrighted? Yes. It is under a free license? No, the site's terms of use forbid redistribution. Could it be fair use? No, he's alive so a free photo of him could be made. Is it therefore allowed on Wikipedia? No. Will it therefore be deleted? Yes. BethNaught (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 00:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

School logo

I want to upload a school logo. The last time I tried, it was deleted by another user. The school has asked me to do this, so I have permission. How do I upload this image so that it won't be deleted again?Merjar (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Merjar: I don't see where you've uploaded it on Wikipedia, so I can't say. However, the school logo will be non-free, so you'll need to upload it to Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons), correctly state that the image belongs to the school, and otherwise comply with the non-free content criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred Thank you for the guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merjar (talk • contribs) 02:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You are probably referring to your upload on the commons c:File:Acs logo.png that has already been deleted as a copyright violation. ww2censor (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hello! I need to delete my files uploaded . What can I do?w — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manutico (talk • contribs) 05:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Manutico: You need to put {{Db-g7}} on their file pages. Why do you want to delete them, out of curiosity? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't see that you have uploaded any images under this user name either here or on the commons, so exactly which images are you talking about. ww2censor (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright permission

To whom it may concern,

I am in the process of creating a Wikipedia article and I would like to attach a headshot photograph of the person featured within the article.

The image I would like to use for the Wikipedia page is an image from photographer Ben Harries. I have been in contact with Ben Harries and he has agreed and confirmed for me to use his photograph within the Wikipedia article.

He has stated he is more than happy to write a confirmation email to Wikipedia stating his permission of using his image. Would this procedure, of sending a confirmation email, work for my circumstance?

If this is not viable would you be able to offer some advice? I have read the information that Wikipedia offers on the terms of copyright, free work and fair use, but I am still unclear on where my situation falls, as I am not the copyright owner of the image, however I have direct confirmation from the copyright owner.

After looking at various other Wikipedia pages written about individuals, most feature a headshot image, similar to the style I am looking to incorporate. I am therefore intrigued in how they have successfully uploaded their image, so I can similarly do the same.

If you were able to offer any advice or help that would be greatly appreciated!

Kind regards

fjralph Fjralph (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A permission email to OTRS might take a while to process but it can work. Do note though that we don't allow fair use images for living people as they are replaceable - the image must be freely licensed.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is a possibility for you to consider because OTRS is currently taking quite a long time due to a backlog. The copyright holder could upload the image to their own website with a copyright licence that we accept. This could be done, if Ben prefers, on a unique webpage unlinked to the rest of his site but that url could be the source for the verification of the uploaded image here. An alternative would be to upload it to the photographer's Flickr account if he has one again with a suitable free licence. ww2censor (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not ask the photographer to go through the trouble of sending a confirmation e-mail for a permission "for me to use his photograph within the Wikipedia article". It would not be accepted and that bad experience could reduce his willingness to contribute. A permission for use by you only in a Wikipedia article only is not compatible with the principle of Wikimedia of free use by anyone anywhere. What you can do is try to convince him to offer his photograph under a free license. For a professional photo, expect it to be more difficult than obtaining a simple permission to use. If he agrees, only then would you ask him to confirm the free license, through one method or another. IMO, the best method is mentioned above by Ww2censor, if the photographer places the photo, with a clear indication of the free license, on a webpage he controls. The other possible method mentioned above is the OTRS e-mail, about which you can direct the photographer to the help page C:Commons:OTRS for details. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The simplest way is to ask and point Ben Harries to:Special:UploadWizard then click on the NEXT box at the very bottom, so that he can upload the image himself with the least hassle to all. This happens to be on our sister project Wikimedia Commons, yet Wikipedia can then use the image. From Ben Harries's point of view, he will see that he still can retain his 'copyright' with same rights as if he had uploaded to Wikipedia. This may seem gobbledygook to you but Ben -being a professional- will be able to suss out both the copyright considerations and how to upload. If he still has any questions will be happy to answer them. Wikipedia Commons should not really be a PR vehicle but pro's have found that it gets examples of their work to a wider audience.--Aspro (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Will this image be deleted?

Will the image of the Scots School Albury logo found at: http://www.hkosc.com.hk/yxzl_detail2.asp?id=1120&cid=3 be deleted if I uploaded to Wikipedia? This is the image URL: http://www.hkosc.com.hk/schoolimage/9f2a0d3d-01ce-4670-8180-7ec8a02d90bd.jpg. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 02:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That image will need a Non-free content rationale to not be deleted. Otherwise, it strikes me as an appropriate usage of non-free logos being used to illustrate the subject they stand for.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The linked image is not the same as on the current school website. You should use that image. ww2censor (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoops. Yeah, that would be this URL if I got the right website.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

How then would I correctly upload the image? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 11:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to first download it on your computer and then upload it though either Special:Upload or the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Remember to use "non-free logo" and to add a detailed nonfree content rationale.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 21:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Picture for Carmine Gorga Page

Dear Wikipedia,

I was recently notified that I picture I was used for Carmine Gorga was taken down for Fair-Use. I had permission from the author to use th picture I had posted. Is it still okay for me to put the picture on the page with this permission? Thank you for your help!

With best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjkbqb (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We do not accept copyright image of living people, so no you cannot put the image back now. You have to find or get a freely licenced image, so if the author of the image you uploaded is the copyright holder please have them follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT but they must understand that their permission allows anyone to use it for anything including commercial and derivative use. Because the image has already been deleted have them give the actual name of the image you uploaded so it can be reinstated after their permission has been verified. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders photo in the public domain?

I was curious about this photo which I initially marked as a historical photograph but possibly is {{PD-US-not renewed}}? Did not see University of Chicago's newspaper listed on the periodical renewal list?--The lorax (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence at the source that this image was ever published which may be why you will not find a periodical renewal especially if you don't know the name of the publication. Do you think it was university's The Chicago Maroon? The source just says it is a photographic print. You also need to consider whether the image complies with all 10 non-free media policy guidelines especially as the image itself has no critical commentary and his 1962 participation in student activity can be easily expressed in prose without the use of a copyright image. ww2censor (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ww2censor:, I had presumed it ran in the Chicago Maroon but perhaps not, I don't see any formal copyright renewal of the image, I tried reaching out to the University but unless otherwise noted, I feel that this could be marked as {{PD-US-not renewed}}, no?--The lorax (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Photos from the Maroon are identified as such. This is not one of them. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Asclepias:@Ww2censor: The Special Collections Research center at University of Chicago replied about this image, saying "This photograph has been published in print form and on the web numerous times and we do not have any information indicating that the copyright was renewed." That sounds like the photo is in the public domain, no?--The lorax (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That reply is just too vague, so without more information of when and where it was first published its copyright status could be for 95 years from first publication if published after 1989 or even 120 if never published. This commons copyright page section gives you an idea of the complexities for an image such as this and why more details are necessary to make a determination. Personally I think it is copyright but unnecessary in the article Bernie Sanders. BTW it has no rationale for the unse in University of Chicago sit-ins an article in which the image is more appropriate. ww2censor (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)