Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
<!-- Please don't move the category links to the bottom, I know it's the norm, but in this case this would cause them to get "bumped" by new questions and possibly archived by mistake or otherwise lost -->
]
]
]
]
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
<!--
PLEASE DO NOT ADD QUESTIONS HERE. ADD THEM TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, INSTEAD. THANKS!
}}<!--PLEASE ADD QUESTIONS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, NOT HERE. THANKS!-->
== ] ==
== Cambridgeshire Collection images ==
Hi, I don't understand why this would still be under a copyright. The author can't be Noel, as he is on the picture. Whether the author is Bruce or unattributed, it is out of copyright in UK and in USA. ] (]) 21:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The hold historic images. I have (copies of) three of them in my possession which I have paid for. I have not uploaded them into wikimedia as I am unsure of the copyright. I would like to use at least two if not three of the images within ] and perhaps one of them in ]. More details of the Little Thetford use at ]. I have sent an email to the Cambridgeshire Collection asking about copyright of the images. However, even if they say I can publish them on wikipedia, the wikipedia rules are so strict, I thought I had better check here too.
:{{ping|Yann}} This was discussed at ] and the main issue seems to have been whether US copyright law or UK copyright law applied. The file was kept and it's possible that the closer of the discussion just left things as they were, but the account that closed that discussion is no longer active. The file seems to have been originally licensed as {{tlx|PD-Pre1978}} but was changed to {{tlx|PD-US-expired-abroad}} in 2022 by {{u|Thincat}}, the uploader of the file. Perhaps Thincat can clarify why they feel the file is still eligible for copyright protection in the UK until 2060. -- ] (]) 01:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Presumably because of the RGS captioning the photographer as being Noel himself and the uncertainty this introduces. Personally I don't think this is a selfie by any stretch of the imagination, and would put the RGS part down as a error. ] (]) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, if the copyright holder was (is) Noel, it is still under UK copyright (died 1989). At the time I uploaded RGS said he is the photographer but now they are more nuanced. I have placed a {{tl|keeplocal}} because I want to minimise the risk of deletion from both platforms. ] (]) 11:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::If a Sherpa took the photograph then it wouldn't now be under US copyright but what about UK, China, Nepal, India and their law regarding (presumably) unknown photographers? ] (]) 11:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think UK (and India) law would say copyright to an unknown photographer would have expired. At the time, and generally, Sherpas were born in Nepal but most expedition Sherpas had gone to live in ], India where expeditions went to find staff. Tibet and Nepal had no concept of nationality (or copyright?). This photo was taken from Chang La (i.e. the ]) on the Tibet/Nepal border (our ] and ] articles are about different locations). Tibet was effectively independent with a feeble claim by China to have ]. ] (]) 11:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::All this doesn't matter for copyright (i.e. place it was taken, photographer's nationality, etc.), only the place of first publication does, which is undoubtedly UK. ] (]) 17:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Although I've been here a (very) long time I did not realise that. I'm pretty sure it was fist published in the UK and then immediatlely rushed into print in the US. Taking Commons' precautionary principle it may still be in UK copyright but out of copyright in US. Thank you for your advice. ] (]) 21:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Of course Noel could have been his own photographer. They had remote wiring and delays in camera equipment even back then. It's absurd to think that he wasn't able to. Noel died in 1989. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::OK, I copied it to Commons. ] (]) 12:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
== Screenshot from a Youtube Video ==
The rear of each photograph is stamped as follows: {{quote|CAMBRIDGESHIRE COLLECTION<br>PRINT print reference<br>NEG negative reference<br>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT<BR>PERMISSION & ACKNOWLEDGEMENT<br>CAMBRIDGESHIRE LIBRARIES}} Your advice would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. --] (]) 11:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
*A primer on requesting copyright permissions is available at ]. Using that, you can more formally request release of the works you want to use under a ]. A permission to use on Misplaced Pages 'license' is meaningless to us. Either it's free licensed, or we use it under terms of ] and our policy at ] governs such usage. Are these historically important images that can not be replaced by someone taking a photograph today? --] (]) 14:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
: Thank you for the above. I will read and digest it. In the meantime, yes; these are historical important images that cannot be retaken.
:* Manor house (former home of ]) now a row of semi-detached houses
:* Old windmill and ] across the ]. Neither exist any more
:* . Still exists but not as it did then. The old photograph shows two cottages which is one house now. --] (]) 15:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if I could use a screenshot from a Youtube video for the image of a person for an article about that person and in what manner i would upload it, because I am not sure if it is copyrighted or not. ] (]) 13:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::These may be public domain because of their age, depending on when they were taken and published. Now, it is not unheard of for a library to say it "owns" a photograph when it really doesn't, it is unlikely to be challenged. I would review the Commons page on licensing, of which the key sentence for the UK seems to be "If the work is a photograph with an unknown author taken before 1 June 1957 then copyright expires 70 years after creation or if during that period the work is made available to the public 70 years after that."--] (]) 20:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|Zzendaya}}. There's some information about this at ]; that page is for Misplaced Pages's sister site ], but the same also applies to Misplaced Pages. Most YouTube content is uploaded under YouTube's standard license which is, in general, too restrictive for Misplaced Pages's purposes; there is some YouTube content that has been uploaded under a less restrictive licensing and this is usually clearly indicated somewhere in the content's description on the YouTube page. Another problem with YouTube is that those uploading content to it need to be 100% the original creator of such content. YouTube uploaders often upload content either entirely or partially created by other parties, and in such cases this third-party content may be eligible for separate copyright protection on its own. So, even a less restrictive YouTube license would only apply to the 100% originally created content of YouTube uploader. Anyway, it would be easier for someone to give you a more specific answer if you could (1) provide the name of the Misplaced Pages article where you want to use this image and (2) provide a link to the YouTube page you want to take the image from. In the case of (2), though, you need to be careful of ] and ], and not post any links which you think might be to copyright violating content. -- ] (]) 20:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Acknowledging that I have seen your post, Wehalt. I will re-post here when I get a response back from library --] (]) 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
::Ok. I will just hold off then, because it seems like the youtube video is copyrighted. But the person I am trying to find a picture for is Dean Withers, who is a tiktok personality. I can't seem to find any videos with a CC license. Can I use Instagram pictures? ] (]) 23:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: I have heard back from the library as follows {{quote|text=Subject: Little Thetford images<br>
:::What was posted above about YouTube videos, in principle, applies to any image of Withers you might find online. You should assume it's protected by copyright unless it clearly states otherwise. You should also assume that the copyright holder is whoever originally created and the image and only that person can release their work under a copyright license that's OK for Misplaced Pages's purposes. -- ] (]) 12:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::Good Morning,<br>
::We have no information as to the photographer of the images you mention, unfortunately. They may be used as part of your website as long as they are of low resolution and that you acknowledge that they are from the Cambridgeshire Collection, Cambridge Central Library.<br>
::Many thanks<br>
::Sender blanked as this is a public website<br>
::Cambridgeshire Collection<br>
::Central Library<br>
::Cambridgeshire Libraries, Archives and Information.<br>}}
: I attempted to upload 72 dpi resolution copies of the images into wikimedia commons using the selection "Where is the work from? Somewhere else.". The upload failed as I do not have a date nor a photographer for the work. The images are all c. 1900 but no one, in the village; the local historian; nor the local library; have a date for any of these three images. So I am stuck. Any help would be appreciated. --] (]) 13:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
:*That "release" is a permission to use on Misplaced Pages release, which is meaningless here. You must ask them for release under a free license. Again, please see ]. If you are certain they are from around 1900, and definitely NOT past 1923, then you can upload them as public domain by age. --] (]) 02:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
::: OK, so I would rather these were not pulled due to doubt. Can anyone age these photos then please?
:::*Print: Y.THE.K6 10483 Neg: 73/7/35a
::::image of old manor house with a herd of cows in the foreground and the Three Horseshoes public house in the background
:::*Print: Y.THE.K1 10454 Neg: 73/8/3
::::Image of the River Great Ouse at Little Thetford; chain ferry in the foreground and old wind pump in the background
:::*Print: Y.THE.K 683(7?) Neg: 73/9/19a
::::Image of the Roundhouse at Little Thetford as it was when it was two three storey cottages
::::{{multiple image |align = right
| footer = Can you identify the date these photos were taken?
| image1 = Little Thetford Main street.jpg
| width1 = 100
| alt1 = old manor house
| caption1 = old manor house c. 1910
| image2 = Little Thetford Ferry c. 1905.jpg
| width2 = 100
| alt2 = b&w ferry with windmill
| caption2 = chain ferry c. 1905
| image3 = Little Thetford Roundhouse 1910.jpg
| width3 = 50
| alt3 = Roundhouse
| caption3 = Roundhouse c. 1910}}
::::: The main street image has telegraph poles. If these are electricy, then the photo was taken post 1953. If they are telephone then at present, I do not know when telephony came to the village. Assuming electricity, this image can and should be deleted. I have removed it from the article --] (]) 10:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::: The main street is definitely after 1953 as the electricity poles are still there to this day. Also, examining the three horse shoes in the background and comparing it with an dates this picture as after 1957. So it needs deleting. --] (]) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
== File:Logo of Parti Lepep Women’s League.jpg ==
:::::: In the three Horseshoes (now the horseshoes) is an old picture on the wall - the same as the river great ouse & ferry above. Below the picture is a faded description which says "Tthe Thetford Ferry, 1905. The two Dewsbury children, Author and Alfred, died in the Great War.". So I am now certain this image is 1905. This image should stand as licensed. --] (]) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
This file was deleted six years ago because it was unused in the article. ] has now been created. Is it possible to recover the file? Regards, ] 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::: In the Roundhouse, we see a lady with child. My wife tells me that the clothing worn dates this image to the early 20th century - certainly before 1923. This image should stand as licensed. --] (]) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
:{{ping|Jeromi Mikhael}} Since ] was restored, I'm assuming you figured things out on your own.-- ] (]) 22:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
== Is this image copyrighted or not? ==
:::::: I would welcome a 2nd opinion, particularly for the three horseshoes and roundhouse images. --] (]) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
https://www.4gamer.net/games/690/G069026/20230302007/SS/002.jpg ] (]) 15:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
== Question regarding adding an image to an article ==
:Almost certainly. What do you plan to use it for? ] (]) 17:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
If I add a picture of a college building taken from the college's website and upload it to an existing article about the college on Misplaced Pages, is this image considered fair use in terms of your potential copyright restrictions? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You really need to link to the page where the image is used instead of directly to the image. I assume you are referring to . Yes, the image is copyrighted absent any further information from the author of the image. -- ] (]) 17:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:In short, no, because someone could always go take a free picture of the college building. ] (]) 16:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:{{ping|Donkey Kong1018}} In general, pretty much anything (images or text) you find online that you didn't originally create yourself should be assumed to be protected by copyright unless it's clearly stated to the contrary. Even if there's no author attributed to it or no visible "This image is copyrighted" type of language (i.e. copyright notice) anywhere to be found on the website, you should assume it's protected. Anonymous creative works are still eligible for copyright protection for various lengths of time under the copyright laws of the US and many other countries; moreover, visible ] are no longer required by most countries, with something becoming eligible for copyright protection as soon as it's published in some tangible medium. Of course, something you find online could be considered to be within the ] because it's too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, too old to still be eligible for copyright protection or some other reason, but most photos are deemed to involve sufficient creative input to warrant copyright protection with the copyright holder in nearly all cases being the person who actually takes the photo. -- ] (]) 22:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
== Should I upload this image to Misplaced Pages, Commons, or not at all? ==
I take it, then, that if I add a photo to my college Wiki, a photo that I have taken, this is ok? If ao, how do I tag it?
] (]) 06:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
https://imslp.org/images/0/03/Joyce.jpg
:]. If the photo is entirely yours (i.e. you took it), then you are free to choose any license that is compatible with our mission. -] </sup>]] 14:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I recently purchased the attached photograph (which I have uploaded to the IMSLP website) and would like to use it to replace the current image on the ] page here on Misplaced Pages; however, I have no way of knowing for certain when it was taken or by whom. Based upon the current image in the article (which was taken between 1908 and 1910) as well as the general style, I estimate it was taken around 1918-1920, but this obviously just conjecture. The image also doesn't appear to have ever been published. Knowing this, I am unsure if I should upload the image here on Misplaced Pages (where US copyright law applies), on Commons (where, since the image is most certainly of British origin, British copyright law applies), or not at all since no concrete date can be ascertained. What should I do? <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic, Ebrima;background-color:OrangeRed;border-radius:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 4px#000000;padding:3px 3px;">]</span><sup>]</sup> 21:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
== Images from Iran? ==
:Is there any indication on the back at all as to the studio that made it? ] (]) 10:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
How are we supposed to treat recent images originating in Iran or other countries that don't have copyright ties with the USA? Obviously they're not permitted on Commons, since they aren't PD or freely-licensed in their countries of origin; however, since images here are generally required to be free only in the USA, do we permit recent Irani etc. images? ] (]) 03:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
::Nope. The back is completely blank. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic, Ebrima;background-color:OrangeRed;border-radius:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 4px#000000;padding:3px 3px;">]</span><sup>]</sup> 11:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::In that case, it would come down to whether we can somehow reliably date the image to 1929 or earlier. It is a bit difficult with an entertainment personality, I suspect, since he could well be wearing clothes that are more elaborate than usual for the period. ] (]) 12:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I found this piece of sheet music published in 1910 that has a illustration very similar to the photograph, though I don't know if it really proves anything. https://www.sheetmusicwarehouse.co.uk/piano-solos-a/a-thousand-kisses-waltz-for-piano-solo/ <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic, Ebrima;background-color:OrangeRed;border-radius:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 4px#000000;padding:3px 3px;">]</span><sup>]</sup> 21:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::@] IMO, it comes down to a judgement call. Based on what you've posted, I don't think he's 20 years older in your pic than in the current WP pic. His mustache seems to reach higher in 1909, whatever that indicates. I'd put it on Commons, "c. 1920" or something like that. If someone wants to challenge that, you can talk about it in a deletion discussion. ] (]) 10:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I would be inclined to agree to the dating {{endash}} however, I would host it here locally under {{tl|PD-US-expired-abroad}}, as I don't think we have enough information to assert that it is public domain in the United Kingdom yet with no provenance information whatsoever. ] (]) 10:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::According to Commons on UK :
:::::::*Anonymous works
:::::::**Photographs created before 30 June 1957: 70 years after creation if unpublished, 70 years after publication if published within 70 years of creation
::::::: He is not 80+ in that picture. ] (]) 11:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The issue is to ascertain whether the photograph is truly anonymous, rather than us just not knowing who the photographer is. I concur though that it is ''unlikely'' to be deleted from Commons, just that I personally would not upload it there without a source that calls it anonymous or a little more provenance (such as the identification of a photography studio known not to identify its individual employee photographer). ] (]) 11:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Fair enough. ] (]) 11:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The photo is not completely without provenance. It was part of a collection of Joyce's papers. Here's a link to the listing on the autograph site I purchased the collection from: https://www.taminoautographs.com/products/archibald-joyce-autographs-lot From my interpretation of the letter that is part of the collection, all of the items were sent as a group to the letter's recipient in January 1950. Joyce mentions mentions the photo in the letter when he says he "enclose a "Photo," also a few callings etc." In my opinion, it's pretty much impossible that the picture was taken anywhere near 1950, and I think the quotation marks around the word photo in the letter also give this fact away. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic, Ebrima;background-color:OrangeRed;border-radius:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 4px#000000;padding:3px 3px;">]</span><sup>]</sup> 20:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I think we all agree so far that you can upload it on the English Misplaced Pages, dated to "ca. some time between 1910 and the early 1920s" or similar. You could also upload it to Commons as an anonymous photograph, citing the sales page where it was from. I wouldn't, because I try to be maximally careful with such "anonymous work" claims if there could well be people out there who do know who the author is, but I certainly wouldn't nominate it for deletion on Commons either. ] (]) 10:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::@], @]
:::::::::Thanks for both of your inputs! I have uploaded the image to Misplaced Pages and would like you both to look my documentation over just so I don't run into any issues in the future. ] <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic, Ebrima;background-color:OrangeRed;border-radius:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 4px#000000;padding:3px 3px;">]</span><sup>]</sup> 02:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I think you did an excellent job! I removed the {{tl|PD-because}} since I think that the permission field is the better place for this information, and to the best of my knowledge {{tl|PD-because}} should only be used instead of, not in addition to a regular PD tag. ] (]) 08:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Looks good. ] (]) 09:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
== How do I know what info to add to an image? ==
:Generally Iran copyright lasts for 30 years after the author's death or date of publication, whichever is later per ] so, because US licencing is longer, so the 1963 or 1978 dates mentioned in ] might apply. You will find many other countries' licencing there too. ] (]) 04:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, but the USA doesn't have copyright relations with Iran; as ] says, "Published works originating in Iran thus are not copyrighted in the United States". I'm asking whether we care about Irani copyright law for Irani images on en:wp, since they're all PD in the USA. ] (]) 04:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
:::IndeedyouarecorrectthatIranhasnocopyrightrelationswith the USA but thatweshould respect Iran'scopyrightas also mentioned at ]. ] (]) 05:28, 4July2010 (UTC)
I added a Sean Diaz (Life is Strange character) image for the page but I need to add shit but I don't know how. ] (]) 22:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Blitzite2}} I've restored the ] of {{noredirect|Sean Diaz}} to '']'' article because article was completely unreferenced with not indication that the subject meets ]. Leaving the article where as it was in the ] would almost certainly lead it to being ]. If you think you find the reliable sources (]) need to establish the character's Misplaced Pages notability, you should continue working on it as a ] and then submitted it to ] when you think its ready for review.{{pb}} As for ], this is almost certainly a copyrighted image and the opyright holders are whoever created ''Life Is Strange''. For that reason, it will need to be treated as ] and subject to ]. Non-free content use is heavily restricted and one of these restrictions is that it can only be used in articles; so, there's no way to use this image in ]. My suggestion to you would be to first work on improving the draft itself and only worry about adding images to it until after it's been approved as an article. I recommend tagging the file for speedy deletion per ], and then requesting that it be ]ed once the draft has been approved. After the file has been refunded, you can add the {{tlx|Non-free character}} template to the file's page as the ], and the {{tlx|Non-free use rationale video game screenshot}} or template to the file's page as the ]. Doing those things now won't stop the image from being deleted as long as it's not being used in accordance with Misplaced Pages's non-free content use policy, but things should be OK after the draft has been approved as an article.{{pb}} Finally, since you're working on draft for an article about a character from a videogame, you might want to ask for suggestions or help at ] because that WikiProject is where Wikipedians interested in articles about videogame are likely going to be found. -- ] (]) 22:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::So we can't simply tag it as PD-US and add a {{tl|Do not move to Commons}}? ] (]) 21:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::That seems to be the case. There are instances in which WP goes beyond what the law requires in copyright matters, for example this, and also in fair use.--] (]) 22:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
== Confusion with ImageTaggingBot ==
== Photo copyright in book ==
Recently, I uploaded an excerpt of the song "Storm" by ] to use the in article for '']'' as per a GAN review request. Shortly afterward, the file was tagged by the ImageTaggingBot as lacking a provided source. But it does have a source; it says it is an excerpt of the song "Storm", which is copyrighted to either Godspeed You! Black Emperor or the song's labels. The excerpt I uploaded of "Then It's White" for ]'s '']'' has a similar description of the excerpt's source and it was never tagged. Can anyone clarify this for me? ] (]) 19:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I have a copy of ''Images of Reading and Surrounding Villages'', published in <s>1971</s> 1995 by the ]. It's chock full of old photographs. One particular image has a caption that says "Here is Friar Street looking towards the Town Hall in 1882". How will I know whether these photos are ]? The opening pages give the standard "no reproduction without prior permission". Cheers, ] (]) 09:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|Lazman321}}. For future reference, it can save others from the need to do some digging when asking about a particular file if you provide a link to the actual file. I'm assuming you're asking about ], right? The bot that tagged that file is run by {{u|Carnildo}}; so, any questions about the why the bot did something are probably better asked of Carnildo. Carnildo seems to be pretty good in responding to queries about the bot, but they haven't edited in about a month in a half. Maybe they've got things going on in the real world at the moment, but there's an explanation of the bot and what it does provided at the top of Carnildo's user talk page. FWIW, the files the bot tags as missing source information are still subject to administrator review, and it's unlikely an administrator is going to delete this file per ]. This seems to me like a false positive, with the bot mistakenly assessing that Wikilinks you provided for the song's label are insufficient (i.e. it might be looking for a link to an external website for some reason) because you left both the {{para|source}} and {{para|website}} parameters for the {{tlx|Non-free use rationale audio sample}} template empty; scrolling through Carnildo's user talk page shows that something similar for some other non-free use rationale templates has been discussed before by others. I don't know why the bot didn't do this for the other file, but that file was uploaded almost two years ago; maybe the bot was inactive or wasn't looking at files the same way then. Anyway, I'll add a {{tlx|Please see}} template for this discussion to Carnildo's user talk page, but you should be OK in removing the template. If it gets re-added again and Carnildo hasn't yet responded, there could be a problem with the bot that might have nothing to do with this file per se that needs to be discussed at ]. -- ] (]) 21:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:When using a template from the {{tl|Non-free use rationale}} family, the bot expects you to fill out at least one of the "source", "publisher", "owner", "website", or "distributor" fields, or provide source information as free-form text. The defaults for those fields tend to be quite vague about who the copyright holder is. --] (]) 04:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Is there any evidence those photos were published before? Or is their presentation in your book the first time they were published? That is an important part. Also, is there a copyright notice at the beginning of the book for the book in general? Finally, does the image say anything about a source or "courtesy of.." or anything like that? -] </sup>]] 14:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
== Is the south korean plane crash copyrighted? ==
Just want to ensure that I am not banned for uploading copyrighted work. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14232987/plane-crash-South-Korea-airport.html I only need the first image, the one that is right up near the crash with flames. ] (]) 02:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I guess there is a possibility that it was an unpublished photo, so the best thing to do would be to contact either the author or the publishing company and ask for clarification. It probably is a PD image, but without further evidence, it may not be safe to assume that.-] </sup>]] 19:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
:{{ping|SimpleSubCubicGraph}} In the general, most photos are considered to involve sufficient copyright protection to warrant copyright protection, and the person who takes a photo is considered to be its copyright holder. It seems the ''Daily Mail'' is attributing the image to ], which could mean it was taken by an YN employee. So, the copyright holder would be YN, the employee or possibly shared copyright between the two depending on whether the person taking the photo did so as part of a ] agreement. You won't be banned per se for uploading a copyright work, but you shouldn't really upload a photo taken by another person without providing a way to verify that person's ]. In some cases, copyrighted photos taken by others can be uploaded as ], but each use of the photo needs to meet ]. In this particular case, it might be hard to meet ] and ]. There could be a less restrictive photo of the same crash capable of serving essentially the same encyclopedic purpose of any non-free one per ], and non-free photos attributed to press agencies or commercial image agencies tend not to be allowed unless the photo itself (not the event it depicts but the actual photo itself) per item 7 of ]. -- ] (]) 03:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] can you find if they allow reuploading? ] (]) 03:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The site specifically has to say that image reuse can be done under a free license or in the public domain; this is usually something either said in the image caption or as a site disclaimer. There's nothing clearly stated in this direction on any of the sites involved, so no, there's no allowed use for the image ] (]) 03:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@] Understood, will delete this thread soon ] (]) 03:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::You should not delete threads that have recieved replies (and are relevant), as they can be used for future answers since they will be archived. See ] and ]<span id="Masem:1735449179383:WikipediaFTTCLNMedia_copyright_questions" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 05:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
== Are these images OK and not copyrighted? ==
::::Right. And when you find out that it is PD, then upload it OTRS pending and forward the email to permissions.--] (]) 22:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
has there been much documentation on the enormous amount of illegal drugs sold in that period of time in south hedland wa <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Please see ]. ]≈<small>]</small> 01:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a file on Misplaced Pages, more specifically a picture that I took, that is being used without the correct credit and license. The file is:
:{{ping|Dillbob07}} Pretty much any image you find online ]. There's licensing information for images uploaded to Flickr almost always found somewhere on the image's page, usually in the lower right of the page. The Flickr image you linked to above is licensed as "All rights reserved" which is too restrictive of a license for Misplaced Pages's purposes. The other two images are from ] sites used by uploader's to "sell" their photos per se; you're paying for a license to allow you to use the photo only in certain ways as explained and . Even if you decided to "buy" the image, however, the licensing agreement you enter into with the image's creator via the site would only apply to you, and it would be way too restrictive for Misplaced Pages's purposes. So, uploading any of these images to Misplaced Pages would be a clear copyright violation and not allowed per Misplaced Pages policy, and the images would likely end up being deleted (perhaps rather quickly) per one of the ]. Generally, for images such as the ones linked to above, you're going to need to demonstrate that the image has already been released by its copyright holder under a license that's ] or obtain the ] of the copyright holder as explained ]. -- ] (]) 04:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
== License Tag ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Saopaulo_noite.jpg
what is a license tag and how do I find out if an image has one? ] (]) 23:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
"Linneker" is not the author of the photo, but submitted it as "own work". However I (Rafael Rigues) am the author. It was taken on April 22, 2008 and is available on Flickr on a CC-BY-SA License. It is part of a tree-picture series. Here is the relevant Flickr page:
:{{Ping|Dillbob07}} There are some examples of commonly used ]s shown at ], but basically anything indicating the copyright status of an image could, I guess, be considered a "license" so to speak. However, most copyright laws around the world these days don't require ] for something to be eligible copyright protection; copyright protection kicks in as soon as something considered eligible for copyright protection is published in some sort of tangible medium. So, pretty much anything you find online, in a print publication, or published by its original copyright holder in some other form should be considered to be eligible for copyright protection unless it clearly states it's not. -- ] (]) 04:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
== Are we sure about ''The Treachery of Images''? ==
As excited as I am about ] to be in the public domain, the Center for the Study of the Public Domain has urged caution as it is unclear whether the work was actually "published" in 1929:
Keep in mind that I DO NOT object to the use of the picture on Misplaced Pages (having submitted various pictures myself), and I only wish to see the credit corrected. What is the most appropriate place/way to make a formal complaint? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I apologize that your photo has been misattributed. I'd love to just make the change, but the file on Flickr is released under a non-commercial use license. Unfortunately, we can't use images under that kind of license. If you would still like us to be able to use it, you'll need to release it under a similar license that allows for commercial use, like the CC-BY-SA license. If you do not wish to change the license, we will delete the file. The choice is yours, as you retain copyright. Please indicate here what you'd like to do, and I will act accordingly. ] <sup>(] ] ])</sup> 04:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
::The best way to get this corrected is to have it deleted and re-uploaded, since there won't be any copyvio in the history. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio, since it's claimed as an own work by the wrong person. ] (]) 21:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
{{blockquote|text=
== PEFC logo ==
Magritte’s painting is actually a useful illustration of the intense difficulties in determining the copyright status of many works from long ago. It is only public domain in 2025 if it was “published,” as defined by copyright law, in 1929. If its first publication was not until later, for example at the Palais des Beaux-Arts exhibition in 1933, then the copyright lasts for 95 years after that year. (For never-published, never-registered works, the term is life + 70 years.) Publication dates can be more challenging to determine for art than it is for books, songs, or films, which were published when they were officially put on sale or released. Generally the law looks at whether the art was genuinely released to the public. If it was created but remained only in the artist’s studio, this did not count. But the rules are murky and “published” is a term of art in copyright law that was not well-defined. Early court cases suggest that artworks were considered published if they were exhibited without restrictions (sometimes there were measures preventing people from copying works on display), circulated in a magazine, catalogue, or other media with authorization, or offered for sale to the public.
Did any of these things occur in 1929 with ''The Treachery of Images''? We are trying to find out. With the help of art historians and librarians, we have combed through catalogues and magazines from the era and biographies of Magritte. We discovered that another version of the image with the pipe reversed appeared in ''Variétés'' magazine—that image is public domain in 2025. But out of an abundance of caution we are still looking into the historical records for information about the famous painting before heralding its official entry into the public domain.
Currently the is used on ] without proper permission from PEFC council. I am about to request permission from them to use the logo on a one-time basis for illustrative and educational purposes on Misplaced Pages from the international PEFC council. How do i detonate in the image meta data that the logo cant be used anywhere else? What else should i take in consideration that you can think of?
|title=,
|multiline=yes
says following about the logo:
}}
PEFC Trademark
The PEFC logo and the initials “PEFC” are the exclusive property of the PEFC Council and are internationally registered trademarks.
--] (]) 06:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
:We do not accept permissions such as that. See ]. All permissions must release content under a free license compatible with our mission. That said, the image in question ] is currently being used without permission under a claim of "fair use", in conjunction with our strict non-free content guidelines ]. This means that we acknowledge the work is copyrighted, but believe our use is legal under a "fair use" claim. More details can be found on the copyright template on the image description page, and in our non-free content policy. The use of logos in this manner is quite routine on the English language Misplaced Pages, and there appears to be nothing wrong or mistagged on the image page, so I don't believe any further action is required. -] </sup>]] 19:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
== Free state government agency materials ==
I'm a little confused about this situation. A state government agency makes posters as part of a public service announcement campaign. Anyone can order these posters online, for free. Since they're giving these posters away freely, does this mean you can take a picture of the poster from their website and use it on Misplaced Pages? Since they want people to have them and see them freely, my first impression would be ''yes, you can'', but I'd like to be sure. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
:That is never a safe assumption. Just because something may be given away, does not mean it is licensed in a manner which is compatible with Misplaced Pages. Remember, we must allow third parties to reuse, modify, and possibly commercially profit from the content. A freely given away poster may have no modification (or no derivative) or noncommercial stipulations. Unless you have clear evidence that the content is released into the public domain or licensed freely, we cannot simply assume it is safe to use here (unless it is a work of the federal government, or some local jurisdiction). I'd say, just contact the state agency, and ask. -] </sup>]] 19:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
::Which state do you mean? There are some governments that release their work into the public domain. ] (]) 21:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Possibly. We don't really have an inclusive list. I believe a good number of Florida State works are public domain. There may be one other state, and who knows about the thousands of local jurisdictions. It seems plausible that some may release stuff into the PD, but I don't know for sure. -] </sup>]] 02:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Minnesota also does, and California apparently too; see ] and ]. Judging by the wording on the California template, no other US states do. ] (]) 19:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
== ] ==
According to its article, this painting was produced and sold in 1921, but ] is currently tagged as nonfree with a fair use rationale. Is there any good reason not to treat this like ]? ] (]) 21:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
:Agreed and {{done}}. ] <sup>(] ] ])</sup> 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks! I've reverted to a larger resolution version. ] (]) 23:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
== question ==
i have a permission of the photographer to use a (c) image.
what license is that?
thanks <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:See ]. You need to first make sure the copyright holder agrees to license the content under the terms of a free license compatible with Misplaced Pages. Then you need to have them forward a filled out ] form to us (or you can forward the e-mails you receive on to us, but it needs to be clear who the copyright holder is, and what license they are choosing, and that they understand that third parties will be able to reuse, modify, and even commercially use their content). To answer your question, the license you will pick when you upload the file is the license the copyright holder has agreed to. You should not upload the file just yet because they have not specified a license. We cannot tell you what license, only the copyright holder (though we recommend the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license).-] </sup>]] 04:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
== non-free media ] ==
Someone with a strong familiarity with non-free media fair use needs to look at the usage of ], it's currently in violation of the rules I believe since there isn't fair use justification for all the page's it's used on... — <b><i><font color="#6600FF">]</font></i></b> <sup>(<font color="#0033FF">]</font> | <font color="#00CC00">]</font>)</sup> 04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
:I don't think this is a case for strong familiarity. ] is straight forward. You are free to either remove the image from all articles that are not named on the file description page in the fair use rationale, or add custom fair use rationales for each use that you feel is appropriate. -] </sup>]] 04:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
::Taken care of. — <b><i><font color="#6600FF">]</font></i></b> <sup>(<font color="#0033FF">]</font> | <font color="#00CC00">]</font>)</sup> 04:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Actually in looking at the two uses of this image, it adds nothing to the reader's understanding of either article and is there only as decoration and to confirm the meeting of Hitler and France but that fact is clearly stated in the prose and therefore the use of a non-free image is unnnecessary so in my opinion fails ]. Personally I suggest you take it to ]. ] (]) 14:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
::::*sigh* I don't really have much divested interest in this image, a user nominated it for a ] and it sorta took charge and dealt with it. I's a really poor image and I don't really have any desire to preserve it, it could be deleted for all I care. — <b><i><font color="#6600FF">]</font></i></b> <sup>(<font color="#0033FF">]</font> | <font color="#00CC00">]</font>)</sup> 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, I was thinking to myself last night it was rather useless and could likely be deleted. The resolution is too low to really see anything of value, and it doesn't seem to fit with any of the article content. -] </sup>]] 15:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Nominated for deletion ]. ] (]) 13:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
== Copyright for celebrity (or others) photos appearing on numerous websites ==
Misplaced Pages has copyright norms for uploading photographs.
1. What about photographs of celebrities or other individuals whose photographs appear in numerous websites with no specific copyright info on the photo? The person obviously has no objection to such photos being published all over (as long as they are decent ones and not morphed).
2. What about historic personality whose photos might have appeared elsewhere?
3. What tags to put in such cases?
SP 04:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
:We have ] for historic photos that meet all 10 ] (meaning they don't hinder the copyright holder's commercial use, there is no free equivalent, the image is cropped and/or a reduced resolution, the image significantly contributes to the reader's understanding of the article topic, etc). As for your first question, we cannot use photos simply on the basis that they are ubiquitous. Misplaced Pages's free content license ensures that third parties may reuse, modify, and even commercially use our content. Photos you find on the internet may not allow modification (also called derivative work), and they may not allow commercial reuse. There are no circumstances where we would allow a photo on Misplaced Pages because the photo is simply found on multiple websites. We need clear evidence of free licensing. You can always contact the copyright holder, and ask them to release the image under a free license. If the photo is already all over the internet, they may be more likely to release the image. Then you can e-mail the permission to us, per ]. Make sure you check out our sample e-mails, because we require specific information in a ] form/release. -] </sup>]] 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
::I should add that just because a copyright doesn't appear doesn't mean there isn't permission as part of a commercial arrangement.--] (]) 15:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
== Licensing Issue regarding File:Vassula.jpg ==
I am currently in the process of editing / creating a network of entries related to True Life in God books whose author is Vassula Ryden. Recently I encountered issues when I tried to upload the Vassula.jpg profile picture as it got marked for speedy deletion with the claim that it did not adhere to the licensing policies.
I have since acquired permission from Vassula Ryden to make uses of any images or published material pertaining to Vassula Ryden / True Life in God material on wikipedia. This permission is in the form of a word document that specifies my wikipedia username and has been signed and scanned by Vassula Ryden. I would be happy to email any moderators / administrators this document as proof. Here are the things I need to do:
1) I need to have the Vassula.jpg image removed as I will be replacing it with a slightly modified version of that picture. How do I go about it doing this?
2) As I have been given permission to make uses of any images or published material pertaining to Vassula Ryden / True Life in God material on wikipedia, when I upload images, please kindly indicate exactly in a step by step procedure what licensing option I should use AND, specifically what tags I need to insert whenever I upload files related to this project, such that they are no longer marked for deletion.
I appreciate any feedback that you may extend. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Have you been granted a CC-BY-SA-3.0 like license? Or granted full rights including permission to grant further rights? Permission to use on Misplaced Pages or by you is not enough as every one at all must be given permission to use, and to make derivatives. This is how free is has to be. Follow the procedure at ]. You can add <nowiki>{{db-author}}</nowiki> to the picture you uploaded and someone will delete it. You can also upload over the top using the same name but the previous picture would still be accessible. ] (]) 00:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I have read the page CC-BY-SA-3.0, and the closest I could find is "Attribution by" which states "Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor the credits in the manner specified by these." This seems to be the closest "license description" to what I have. I fully intend to credit the Author for her works. The intention is to upload a new profile picture of her, a picture of her book and a 3rd picture of her receiving an award. Again please advise what tags I should to upload these pictures such that they avoid being tagged with speedy deletion. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:YOu will have to describe the source of the picture, who owns the copyright, and describe the license, CC-BY-3.0 is acceptable too, as you describe above. Also put in the <nowiki>{{OTRS pending}}</nowiki> and follow up with the email proving that permission has been given by the copyright holder. Include the name of your upload in the email. ] (]) 12:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I have uploaded a file:
http://en.wikipedia.org/File:VassulaRyden.jpg
and following your instructions added the <nowiki>{{OTRS pending}}</nowiki> markup. Please advise who or which email address I should use to send the document that grants me the license to use these images. I could not find an email address in the upload section.
*You were told above, ]. However, it appears from the file you uploaded that you have permission to use this image on Misplaced Pages. That's not a free license, certainly not CC-BY-SA or anything else CC. --] (]) 03:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
== PC David Rathband ==
Hi, I'd like to upload of PC David Rathband to illustrate the ] article. They were reportedly issued by Northumbria Police "At his request we are releasing a photograph of his injuries before he received treatment. He has agreed to the release of this photos on the basis the media respect the express wishes of his family not to be approached or identified." Is there a reasonable justification for either fair use or PD? I'd hope, if it's available for all other media outlets to use commerically, it should be ok for us.--] (]) 12:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
:I don't think that PD is applicable (the police have not formally relinquished all their rights), and ] would preclude the files' inclusion as fair-use. <font color="#A20846">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 13:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
::Ok, but if we said the image was descriptive of PC Rathband's injuries and treatment rather than a 'portrait' - it wouldn't be possible to take another non-free image. --] (]) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
:::There's definitely no reason to assume that was a PD release. I don't think UULP applies here, though, because the intent is to show the untreated injuries in the hopes that people will be more willing to turn the perp in, and a later photo wouldn't serve that purpose. That said, I'm still not convinced that there's a valid fair-use rationale for the picture.--] (]) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
::::My question is, why do we need these images? What do they possibly add to the article? Is a photo a a bloody face really encyclopaedic here? ] ] 15:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::We need these images (and an image of Moat) to illustrate the victim of his attack. I'm going to call Northumbria's media centre tomorrow and try and get some clarity on the licensing situation. Personally I believe the images bring a sensitivity to the reader that these are very real events with very real consequences. One assumes the police released them for similar reasons as they are soliciting help from the public. But the debate about whether to include it is going on at the talk page of the article - my question here is about licensing them in the current form without further clarification from the copyright holders. --] (]) 15:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::It could be justifiable. The photo is not meant to illustrate PC Rathband, but rather his injuries. The extent of the injuries is well illustrated by the photo (moreso than can be conveyed in words), and fair use is helped by the release of the photo to the media by the police being deliberate and there being no commercial rights that could be impinged upon. I think use of a single image could be supported. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&</span>] 15:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
== Non-free videos ==
What is Misplaced Pages stand on non-free videos? Can a 30 second sample of a non-free video be included onto an article? ] ] 07:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:Pretty much, yes, as long as it helps readers understand the topic and can't be replaced by one or a few still images. See ], especially User:Masem's comment at the end. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for the input, the reason why I asked because I like to add the video to ], although the video will help the readers understand the subject a bit more, a image is already used and is currently doing alright job. So in this case a video may not be allowable. ] ] 13:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
== Copyright status of photo from unknown photographer ==
I think I know the answer to this one, but I'm looking for some other opinions. I'm wanting to use a photo, specifically the one , but there's no indication of the original source or photographer. The photo is old as the subject died in 1926. Can this photo be presumed PD in the US and/or in France (where it was presumably taken)? ] (]) 11:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:Firstly, I note that the site claims copyright of all images. Secondly, it depends on when the image was published. If the site found it in the effects of the artist's estate and published it for the first time in 2009 (the copyright date on the site) you are looking at 120 years from the date of creation. If it was published in France prior to 1923, it will be PD. If it was published in France post 1923 it cannot be presumed PD in 1996, therefore it cannot be PD in the united states. --] (]) 12:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks, I'm looking for more information to see if I can confirm when/where/by whom it was published first which would've answered my question, but its existence is all I have so far. ] (]) 14:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
== Help with explaining copyrights ==
] is a very recent picture of an ]. This photo was uploaded locally as fair use, but I contested it because anyone could take a picture of it; the uploader then claimed that it was PD-old (the entire image, not just the bust) and had it uploaded to Commons. I've deleted the original image, since it's a clear copyvio, and I've nominated it for speedy at Commons. Can anyone help me to explain to the ] that the image itself is copyrightable, and that we consider a photo of such an object replaceable? Although s/he has been an active editor for more than three years, the uploader appears to think that the photo itself is PD-old, and because s/he's on the other side of the ocean from the bust, s/he says that the image isn't replaceable because s/he can't photograph it personally. ] (]) 13:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
::Actually I am not the uploader, however the ] who is also a veteran editor for more than 4 years like me initially altered the copyrighted photograph and uploaded a cropped version of the image under Fair use. I think it should be reinstated as Fair use with the proviso that a new photo can preferably be supplied per ] at the very least, I did not upload it to commons by the way, although I strongly object to its being speedied. Why not just ask ] to supply a new image?...] (]) 15:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
*A photograph taken of any object can potentially have encumbered rights from the object being photographed, and the photography itself. In this case, the subject is old and no copyright sustains on the bust. However, there most emphatically is the possibility of copyright on the photography. If those rights have not been specifically released by the photographer, then there's no question it has to be treated as fair use. Given that this bust exists, a free replacement of it can be made. The image must go, and sorry 'common sense' here doesn't mean we maintain non-free content until someone manages to make a free version. --] (]) 15:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
::The uploader may have been thinking of recent events relating to the National Portrait Gallery (have I got the right one?) attempting to claim copyright on slides of Old Masters. The thing with a photo of a statue is that there is inevitably more than just a straight reproduction of the statue in the image - there's lighting and angle and suchlike, which give it sufficient creative content to be copyrightable.--] (]) 16:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, you have the right people; see ]. ] (]) 17:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:*That's what I tried to say. ] (]) 17:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
::*I understand the reasoning, I just don't agree with it...] (]) 18:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:::*You are of course welcome to your opinion. However, the fact is this image is copyrighted, and cropping the source from which it is derived doesn't remove copyrights. --] (]) 19:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Common sense tells me the image can be used as fair use with its original Fair use rationale and never should have gone to Commons...] (]) 21:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::Policy prevails over whatever people think common sense is. ] is very clear on this subject. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created," This bust exists. A new image could be created and licensed under a free license. We can not and will not accept non-free imagery of it. --] (]) 00:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Like I said, I'd gladly undelete the file here, and tag it as fair use... if it can be demonstrated such a use is in line with NFCC. Hammersoft clearly objects, but I'm willing to hear the other side. How does this image not fail ]? How is it not easily replaceable? Has the bust been destroyed? Is it not on public display or is it part of a private collection? What's the rationale? -] </sup>]] 02:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::That is precisely my point. I am on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and I cannot take a photograph of the piece, however I also am not aware of it being on public display anywhere in France where it was found, although it was given to the ]. While it does exist and theoretically it can be re-photographed; however in my opinion common sense says to use the image with its initial fair use rationale...] (]) 03:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Just because one individual cannot personally create a photographic replacement doesn't mean we have to resort to non-free content. We have tons of French users (and some even own cameras!) I think we should research this a bit, figure out whether it is indeed possible to photograph this item, and then, if we can demonstrate in the rationale that no replacement is possible, I'll gladly restore the photo. -] </sup>]] 03:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Appreciated Andrew, perhaps you might enter a notice on the French Misplaced Pages, the issue is further complicated by its being a 3d object, that needs a quality picture. Thanks...] (]) 04:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
== File:Seiler instrument home office.jpg ==
My photo "Seiler instrument home office" was flagged. I had included the fact that Craig Sullentrup, photographer and poster of the photo, had given me permission to post it via email. However, I see that this is not sufficient for the situation. I can forward his address to anyone interested and he will confirm. What is the best/quickest way to make my correspondence with him official as it is slated to be deleted on the 15th? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
link ] <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*Have a look at ] and follow the instructions there. Alternatively, can you take a photograph of this building yourself and post it? --] (]) 15:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
== Re-uploading pictures of ODXQ.jog or DinhXuanQuang.jgp ==
I hereby affirm that the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Judge Đinh Xuân Quảng- (see http: above) the work to be released in detail). I agree to release that work including the 2 pictures of DinhXuanQuang.jpg and TheCabinetBuuLoc.jpg into the public domain.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
(to allow future verification of authenticity)
] <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The idea is to send an email stating this as in ]. With your posting we cannot see where the email came from. I also removed your email. ] (]) 00:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
== How do I ==
How do I post a new article on Misplaced Pages ?? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Create a new account and type the name of your article in the search box, or go to ] to get started without logging on. ] (]) 03:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
== Fair use? ==
I believe, but am not sure, that my fair use rationale for using ], from http://registerguard.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=650776&CategoryID=36198&ListSubAlbums=0&thisPage=2, is acceptable: I plan to use it in my article, which is at ''http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Jsayre64/Oregon_Community_Credit_Union'', to represent the credit union and not to mention anything about the logo in the background nor the woman in front. Is my fair use rationale acceptable and can I and how can I use this image in my article without it having to be deleted in a week? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*I think the image selection isn't what you want. I presume you're referring to . You'd be much better off using , and adding <nowiki>{{non-free logo}}</nowiki> to the image description page, along with a fair use rationale for ]. However, I would suggest you make this one of the last things you do before pushing the development article into the main namespace. Non-free images are deleted seven days after they are orphaned (not used in any articles). Also, are you an employee of this credit union? If so, you should read ]. --] (]) 18:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
== Old photograph in old book ==
image on Flickr was uploaded with a CC attribution 2.0 generic license. According to the uploader it is from the book ''Im Fluge durch die Welt'' from around 1900. The photo is by John L. Stoddard (d. 1931). Is it acceptable to crop the image so as to remove the text and keep only the photo, and upload that to Commons? ] (]) 22:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:It sounds like it is now public domain, as author dies over 70 years ago, so you can be free to do that. ] (]) 03:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
:{{ec}} Normally, the CC-BY license would allow for derivative works, which is what you have suggested. But the flickr uploader is not the original copyright holder, making that licensing claim rather useless. However, if the photographer really died in 1931, the work is most likely ineligible for copyright (in the ]), since he died more than 70 years ago. You should be able to upload the image to Commons using their ] (1931+75=2006). Since it's in the Public Domain, you can make any modifications you would like before uploading. ] <sup>(] ] ])</sup> 03:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks. I wasn't aware of that template. ] (]) 11:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
== ] ==
Is there something akin to the OTRS process on Wiki? If this were on Commons I'd strongly suggest that this image needs OTRS permission but not sure what to do with it here. This seems to be in line with some ] editing at ] which suggests to me the image release may be valid but I'd like to get some confirmation of this prior to transferring it to the commons. Cheers, <b><i>]<small> ] • ] </small></i></b> 11:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
:See ] (it's basically the same as Commons). E-mails with permission go to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, as described at ]. <font style="font-family:Constantia" size="3" color="#0077bb">]</font> 02:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
::(Of course, if it's really being released into the public domain, then it really ought to end up on Commons anyway.) <font style="font-family:Constantia" size="3" color="#0077bb">]</font> 02:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
== ] ==
This image is tagged as non-free, but is it really complex enough for copyright? It consists solely of the letters "USRA" superimposed on a circle, and everything is the same color. ] (]) 01:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
*It isn't. I've re-tagged it. --] (]) 16:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Should we wait until they find out if it entered the public domain this year to mark it as PD-US?
:Indeed, it shouldn't be marked as PD unless some evidence can be found to show when it was published. ] (]) 19:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Close Paraphrasing in ] ==
]
I'm not sure where to ask this, but I was looking for someone with better copyvio experience to look at the Attacks section of ]. Particularly the 'Division' subsections. I've removed some very obvious copyvio, but a lot of seemingly close paraphrasing still remains. However I'm unsure exactly how problematic it is. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
This image should be removed immediately for violation of copyright. From getty images: http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/102771090/Getty-Images-Sport -- <font face="Modern" size="2">''']|]'''</font> 16:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
== The logo of the Indonesian military institution and the copyrigth ==
:Makes sense; link says "USER IS NOT PERMITTED TO DOWNLOAD OR USE IMAGE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL.", and no evidence of permission was given. Since it's unlikely that user obtained commercial release for this use, ] applies, and I've tagged it. The uploader has been informed on his talk page. <font style="font-family:Constantia" size="3" color="#0077bb">]</font> 20:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Based on ], military institution logos, such as the ] and ], are freely usable as long as they are not intended for commercialization. However, why have the Denjaka and Kolinlamil logos been removed from ] page? If the reason, according to the bot, is due to ] violation(s), it does not make sense because, legally, I am not violating any regulations ] (]) 12:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] image question ==
:{{u|Bukansatya}}: Those logos have been removed from ] because there is no rationale for the use in that article. Each different article use of a non-free image MUST have a rationale specific to that use to justify it, and without it, it will be removed. Sometimes it may not be possible to justify such an additional use. ] (]) 18:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well, this is a military engagement, so it is reasonable to include the logos of the units involved.
::By the why Would it be possible to change the copyright status of these logos from non-free content to public domain? Many other military unit logos or emblems are classified as public domain. ] (]) 18:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Bukansatya}} The licensing of the file's shouldn't be changed to ] if the logos aren't within the public domain under ], the ] or both. Since English Misplaced Pages's servers are located in the US and file's uploaded to it can only be used on English Misplaced Pages, it's the copyright law of the United States that matters the most. The fact that other military unit logos are licensed as public domain could mean either (1) they're incorrectly licensed or (2) the ]. As for the non-free use of the files, Misplaced Pages's non-free content use policy generally allows the non-free use of such logos in stand-alone articles about the units themselves if the logos were used at the top of or in the main infobox of the article for primary identification purposes, or in a sub-section of such an article discussing the logo which is supported by citations to reliable sources: however, relevant policy never allows them to be used (I can't think of a single case where it does) in infoboxes of other articles (e.g. articles about battles) when they just being used as quasi-flag icons next to unit name. This is always considered to be a failure of ] (]), ] (]) and even ]. I doubt you'll be able to establish a consensus otherwise at ], but you can try if you disagree. FWIW, the bot removed the files per ] because they failed ] as explained by {{u|Ww2censor}} above; so, adding the missing rationales to the files' pages will stop the bot from removing them again. However, non-free content use is required to meet all ] and failing even ] means the use isn't considered valid. So, another user could still challenge their non-free use as being invalid. As I mentioned above, this type of non-free use is pretty much never considered valid and you're going to have a really hard time establishing anything different this time. -- ] (]) 22:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Frida Kahlo ==
I'm expanding ] and as I was looking for additional images I found the image that was in the infobox when I first started editing the article is cropped from at Getty images. I don't know the policy regarding Getty images. Are we allowed to use them? If so, I'd prefer to use the uncropped image. Thanks. ] (]) 21:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
:It's not actually from Getty images. The image is so old, that copyright is expired. If you look at the file page ], it explains that it's old so there is no copyright. ]≈<small>]</small> 01:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for the reply. I saw that it's PD because of the age of the image, but was confused when I saw the Getty image from which it's cropped. If it's an old image and PD, is it possible to use the uncropped Getty image? ] (]) 02:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I was asked about the copyright status of ] on ]. Can someone clarify if the painting is indeed PD or copyrighted until 2033? ] (]) 05:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== File O. DXQ.jpg ==
*Hi ]. The 2033 date is correct for the US. The painting is PD in countries where the copyright duration is life plus seventy, but that's irrelevant because neither of the countries that matter in this case use that term; Mexico is PD-100. Personally, I'd recommend removing PD-70 because it is confusing. — ] (]) 13:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you. ] (]) 04:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== File:The Karnival Kid (1929).webm ==
I have sent a question on July 8. Thought there was a visit by admin with an answer but I could not locate the answer. Please let me know how to proceed to ensure the article is completed with Judge Dinh Xuân Quang's picture, and to place the article into public domain.
This film on wikipedia is illegal in European union and another countries. It should be limited to only ip's of USA. It would be not available on another countries. It must implement to secure only ip's of USA. It will be required VPN. ] (]) 13:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Below is the permission from Dr. Dinh Xuân Quan, the only son of Judge Dinh Xuân Quang:
:On the English Misplaced Pages, run on Wikimedia servers located in the United States, generally only US copyright is considered. This is different for Commons files intended to be used in Wikipedias in a variety of languages. There, the policy is also to respect the copyright of the source country of a work. In this case, the work is entirely American in origin and can therefore be hosted on Commons as well as used in the English Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I hereby affirm that the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Judge Đinh Xuân Quảng- (see http: above) the work to be released in detail). I agree to release that work into the public domain.
::But video's are still illegal to show in Europe. it's ilegal to due copy right notice in Europe. This video must be blocked at this regions europe,asia and america. It would be seen: This film is not available in this regio European Union and will showed only in USA. ] (]) 19:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
::The file is actually hosted on Commons. -- ] (]) 19:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.
:::Convenience link: ]
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
:::Misplaced Pages is unable to restrict content based on where a user is located. Different languages are free to make policies about what content they will include in their articles. That means (for example) the German-language Misplaced Pages can refuse to have that file in their articles, on the assumption that people who choose German Wiki are in Germany where the file is not free. Each language's Misplaced Pages site is independent, and will make its own decisions based on whatever their policies are. Whether it meets Commons rules is something you will have to take up on that site, which is independent of the English Misplaced Pages (we just use their media in our articles). The file on Commons has an extensive note about where the image is vs isn't usable. ] (]) 19:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
(to allow future verification of authenticity)
== Help needed with ] ==
Thanks, <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*This is quite unclear. What is it you are trying to do? What work is it you are referring to? What do you want to do with it? Regardless, posting this 'permission' here isn't helpful. You need to be explicitly clear about what you want to do, and with what, and send it via the instructions at ]. --] (]) 03:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe that this file satisfies the en:Misplaced Pages ] criteria, but that it does not meet the ] requirements of ] or ]. Somehow it was nevertheless move to Commons, where it was quite correctly deleted.
== Enquiry ==
In order to prevent this or something like it happening again, I think that someone needs to check the fair use rational I have provided at ] and indicate that this has been done. Or alternatively, tell me what else needs to happen. (Apologies I can't seem to link to the image without unintended consequences.) ] (]) 04:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Greetings!
:I added the links to the file. Your fair use rationale seems fine. ] (]) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello, can i share info / pages from wikipedia to my facebook?
::Wonderful, thank you. I had it almost right as to what needed to happen, but I was following some blind leads. It all makes sense now. ] (]) 06:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest revision as of 15:59, 3 January 2025
Centralized discussion place in English Misplaced Pages
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Misplaced Pages:Questions.
How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
Hit Publish changes.
If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
Note for those replying to posted questions
If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: ]. (Please note the ":" just before the word File) Thanks!
Hi, I don't understand why this would still be under a copyright. The author can't be Noel, as he is on the picture. Whether the author is Bruce or unattributed, it is out of copyright in UK and in USA. Yann (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Presumably because of the RGS captioning the photographer as being Noel himself and the uncertainty this introduces. Personally I don't think this is a selfie by any stretch of the imagination, and would put the RGS part down as a error. Nthep (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, if the copyright holder was (is) Noel, it is still under UK copyright (died 1989). At the time I uploaded RGS said he is the photographer but now they are more nuanced. I have placed a {{keeplocal}} because I want to minimise the risk of deletion from both platforms. Thincat (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
If a Sherpa took the photograph then it wouldn't now be under US copyright but what about UK, China, Nepal, India and their law regarding (presumably) unknown photographers? Thincat (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I think UK (and India) law would say copyright to an unknown photographer would have expired. At the time, and generally, Sherpas were born in Nepal but most expedition Sherpas had gone to live in Darjeeling, India where expeditions went to find staff. Tibet and Nepal had no concept of nationality (or copyright?). This photo was taken from Chang La (i.e. the North Col) on the Tibet/Nepal border (our Chang La and Changla articles are about different locations). Tibet was effectively independent with a feeble claim by China to have suzerainty. Thincat (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
All this doesn't matter for copyright (i.e. place it was taken, photographer's nationality, etc.), only the place of first publication does, which is undoubtedly UK. Yann (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Although I've been here a (very) long time I did not realise that. I'm pretty sure it was fist published in the UK and then immediatlely rushed into print in the US. Taking Commons' precautionary principle it may still be in UK copyright but out of copyright in US. Thank you for your advice. Thincat (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Of course Noel could have been his own photographer. They had remote wiring and delays in camera equipment even back then. It's absurd to think that he wasn't able to. Noel died in 1989. Bastique02:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if I could use a screenshot from a Youtube video for the image of a person for an article about that person and in what manner i would upload it, because I am not sure if it is copyrighted or not. Zzendaya (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Zzendaya. There's some information about this at c:COM:YOUTUBE; that page is for Misplaced Pages's sister site Wikimedia Commons, but the same also applies to Misplaced Pages. Most YouTube content is uploaded under YouTube's standard license which is, in general, too restrictive for Misplaced Pages's purposes; there is some YouTube content that has been uploaded under a less restrictive licensing and this is usually clearly indicated somewhere in the content's description on the YouTube page. Another problem with YouTube is that those uploading content to it need to be 100% the original creator of such content. YouTube uploaders often upload content either entirely or partially created by other parties, and in such cases this third-party content may be eligible for separate copyright protection on its own. So, even a less restrictive YouTube license would only apply to the 100% originally created content of YouTube uploader. Anyway, it would be easier for someone to give you a more specific answer if you could (1) provide the name of the Misplaced Pages article where you want to use this image and (2) provide a link to the YouTube page you want to take the image from. In the case of (2), though, you need to be careful of WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK, and not post any links which you think might be to copyright violating content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok. I will just hold off then, because it seems like the youtube video is copyrighted. But the person I am trying to find a picture for is Dean Withers, who is a tiktok personality. I can't seem to find any videos with a CC license. Can I use Instagram pictures? Zzendaya (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
What was posted above about YouTube videos, in principle, applies to any image of Withers you might find online. You should assume it's protected by copyright unless it clearly states otherwise. You should also assume that the copyright holder is whoever originally created and the image and only that person can release their work under a copyright license that's OK for Misplaced Pages's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
You really need to link to the page where the image is used instead of directly to the image. I assume you are referring to this page. Yes, the image is copyrighted absent any further information from the author of the image. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@Donkey Kong1018: In general, pretty much anything (images or text) you find online that you didn't originally create yourself should be assumed to be protected by copyright unless it's clearly stated to the contrary. Even if there's no author attributed to it or no visible "This image is copyrighted" type of language (i.e. copyright notice) anywhere to be found on the website, you should assume it's protected. Anonymous creative works are still eligible for copyright protection for various lengths of time under the copyright laws of the US and many other countries; moreover, visible copyright notices or other formalities are no longer required by most countries, with something becoming eligible for copyright protection as soon as it's published in some tangible medium. Of course, something you find online could be considered to be within the public domain because it's too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, too old to still be eligible for copyright protection or some other reason, but most photos are deemed to involve sufficient creative input to warrant copyright protection with the copyright holder in nearly all cases being the person who actually takes the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Should I upload this image to Misplaced Pages, Commons, or not at all?
I recently purchased the attached photograph (which I have uploaded to the IMSLP website) and would like to use it to replace the current image on the Archibald Joyce page here on Misplaced Pages; however, I have no way of knowing for certain when it was taken or by whom. Based upon the current image in the article (which was taken between 1908 and 1910) as well as the general style, I estimate it was taken around 1918-1920, but this obviously just conjecture. The image also doesn't appear to have ever been published. Knowing this, I am unsure if I should upload the image here on Misplaced Pages (where US copyright law applies), on Commons (where, since the image is most certainly of British origin, British copyright law applies), or not at all since no concrete date can be ascertained. What should I do? Physeters21:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
In that case, it would come down to whether we can somehow reliably date the image to 1929 or earlier. It is a bit difficult with an entertainment personality, I suspect, since he could well be wearing clothes that are more elaborate than usual for the period. Felix QW (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
@Physeters IMO, it comes down to a judgement call. Based on what you've posted, I don't think he's 20 years older in your pic than in the current WP pic. His mustache seems to reach higher in 1909, whatever that indicates. I'd put it on Commons, "c. 1920" or something like that. If someone wants to challenge that, you can talk about it in a deletion discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I would be inclined to agree to the dating – however, I would host it here locally under {{PD-US-expired-abroad}}, as I don't think we have enough information to assert that it is public domain in the United Kingdom yet with no provenance information whatsoever. Felix QW (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
According to Commons on UK :
Anonymous works
Photographs created before 30 June 1957: 70 years after creation if unpublished, 70 years after publication if published within 70 years of creation
The issue is to ascertain whether the photograph is truly anonymous, rather than us just not knowing who the photographer is. I concur though that it is unlikely to be deleted from Commons, just that I personally would not upload it there without a source that calls it anonymous or a little more provenance (such as the identification of a photography studio known not to identify its individual employee photographer). Felix QW (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The photo is not completely without provenance. It was part of a collection of Joyce's papers. Here's a link to the listing on the autograph site I purchased the collection from: https://www.taminoautographs.com/products/archibald-joyce-autographs-lot From my interpretation of the letter that is part of the collection, all of the items were sent as a group to the letter's recipient in January 1950. Joyce mentions mentions the photo in the letter when he says he "enclose a "Photo," also a few callings etc." In my opinion, it's pretty much impossible that the picture was taken anywhere near 1950, and I think the quotation marks around the word photo in the letter also give this fact away. Physeters20:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I think we all agree so far that you can upload it on the English Misplaced Pages, dated to "ca. some time between 1910 and the early 1920s" or similar. You could also upload it to Commons as an anonymous photograph, citing the sales page where it was from. I wouldn't, because I try to be maximally careful with such "anonymous work" claims if there could well be people out there who do know who the author is, but I certainly wouldn't nominate it for deletion on Commons either. Felix QW (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for both of your inputs! I have uploaded the image to Misplaced Pages and would like you both to look my documentation over just so I don't run into any issues in the future. Portrait of Archibald Joyce (1873 – 1963)Physeters02:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I think you did an excellent job! I removed the {{PD-because}} since I think that the permission field is the better place for this information, and to the best of my knowledge {{PD-because}} should only be used instead of, not in addition to a regular PD tag. Felix QW (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
@Blitzite2: I've restored the WP:REDIRECT of Sean Diaz to Life Is Strange article because article was completely unreferenced with not indication that the subject meets Misplaced Pages's General Notability Guideline. Leaving the article where as it was in the WP:MAINSPACE would almost certainly lead it to being nominated for deletion. If you think you find the reliable sources (as defined by Misplaced Pages) need to establish the character's Misplaced Pages notability, you should continue working on it as a WP:DRAFT and then submitted it to WP:AFC when you think its ready for review. As for File:Sean Diaz.png, this is almost certainly a copyrighted image and the opyright holders are whoever created Life Is Strange. For that reason, it will need to be treated as non-free content and subject to Misplaced Pages's non-free content use policy. Non-free content use is heavily restricted and one of these restrictions is that it can only be used in articles; so, there's no way to use this image in Draft:Sean Diaz. My suggestion to you would be to first work on improving the draft itself and only worry about adding images to it until after it's been approved as an article. I recommend tagging the file for speedy deletion per WP:G7, and then requesting that it be WP:REFUNDed once the draft has been approved. After the file has been refunded, you can add the {{Non-free character}} template to the file's page as the copyright license, and the {{Non-free use rationale video game screenshot}} or template to the file's page as the non-free use rationale. Doing those things now won't stop the image from being deleted as long as it's not being used in accordance with Misplaced Pages's non-free content use policy, but things should be OK after the draft has been approved as an article. Finally, since you're working on draft for an article about a character from a videogame, you might want to ask for suggestions or help at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games because that WikiProject is where Wikipedians interested in articles about videogame are likely going to be found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Confusion with ImageTaggingBot
Recently, I uploaded an excerpt of the song "Storm" by Godspeed You! Black Emperor to use the in article for Lift Your Skinny Fists like Antennas to Heaven as per a GAN review request. Shortly afterward, the file was tagged by the ImageTaggingBot as lacking a provided source. But it does have a source; it says it is an excerpt of the song "Storm", which is copyrighted to either Godspeed You! Black Emperor or the song's labels. The excerpt I uploaded of "Then It's White" for the Field's Looping State of Mind has a similar description of the excerpt's source and it was never tagged. Can anyone clarify this for me? Lazman321 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Lazman321. For future reference, it can save others from the need to do some digging when asking about a particular file if you provide a link to the actual file. I'm assuming you're asking about File:Godspeed You! Black Emperor - Storm.ogg, right? The bot that tagged that file is run by Carnildo; so, any questions about the why the bot did something are probably better asked of Carnildo. Carnildo seems to be pretty good in responding to queries about the bot, but they haven't edited in about a month in a half. Maybe they've got things going on in the real world at the moment, but there's an explanation of the bot and what it does provided at the top of Carnildo's user talk page. FWIW, the files the bot tags as missing source information are still subject to administrator review, and it's unlikely an administrator is going to delete this file per WP:F4. This seems to me like a false positive, with the bot mistakenly assessing that Wikilinks you provided for the song's label are insufficient (i.e. it might be looking for a link to an external website for some reason) because you left both the |source= and |website= parameters for the {{Non-free use rationale audio sample}} template empty; scrolling through Carnildo's user talk page shows that something similar for some other non-free use rationale templates has been discussed before by others. I don't know why the bot didn't do this for the other file, but that file was uploaded almost two years ago; maybe the bot was inactive or wasn't looking at files the same way then. Anyway, I'll add a {{Please see}} template for this discussion to Carnildo's user talk page, but you should be OK in removing the template. If it gets re-added again and Carnildo hasn't yet responded, there could be a problem with the bot that might have nothing to do with this file per se that needs to be discussed at WP:AN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
When using a template from the {{Non-free use rationale}} family, the bot expects you to fill out at least one of the "source", "publisher", "owner", "website", or "distributor" fields, or provide source information as free-form text. The defaults for those fields tend to be quite vague about who the copyright holder is. --Carnildo (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
@SimpleSubCubicGraph: In the general, most photos are considered to involve sufficient copyright protection to warrant copyright protection, and the person who takes a photo is considered to be its copyright holder. It seems the Daily Mail is attributing the image to Yohap News, which could mean it was taken by an YN employee. So, the copyright holder would be YN, the employee or possibly shared copyright between the two depending on whether the person taking the photo did so as part of a work for hire agreement. You won't be banned per se for uploading a copyright work, but you shouldn't really upload a photo taken by another person without providing a way to verify that person's WP:CONSENT. In some cases, copyrighted photos taken by others can be uploaded as non-free content, but each use of the photo needs to meet Misplaced Pages's non-free content use policy. In this particular case, it might be hard to meet non-free content use criterion #1 and non-free content use criterion #2. There could be a less restrictive photo of the same crash capable of serving essentially the same encyclopedic purpose of any non-free one per WP:FREER, and non-free photos attributed to press agencies or commercial image agencies tend not to be allowed unless the photo itself (not the event it depicts but the actual photo itself) per item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The site specifically has to say that image reuse can be done under a free license or in the public domain; this is usually something either said in the image caption or as a site disclaimer. There's nothing clearly stated in this direction on any of the sites involved, so no, there's no allowed use for the image Masem (t) 03:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
You should not delete threads that have recieved replies (and are relevant), as they can be used for future answers since they will be archived. See WP:TPO and WP:REFACTOR — Masem (t) 05:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
@Dillbob07: Pretty much any image you find online should be assumed to be under copyright protection unless it clearly states otherwise by its original creator. There's licensing information for images uploaded to Flickr almost always found somewhere on the image's page, usually in the lower right of the page. The Flickr image you linked to above is licensed as "All rights reserved" which is too restrictive of a license for Misplaced Pages's purposes. The other two images are from stock photo sites used by uploader's to "sell" their photos per se; you're paying for a license to allow you to use the photo only in certain ways as explained here and here. Even if you decided to "buy" the image, however, the licensing agreement you enter into with the image's creator via the site would only apply to you, and it would be way too restrictive for Misplaced Pages's purposes. So, uploading any of these images to Misplaced Pages would be a clear copyright violation and not allowed per Misplaced Pages policy, and the images would likely end up being deleted (perhaps rather quickly) per one of the speedy deletion criteria for files. Generally, for images such as the ones linked to above, you're going to need to demonstrate that the image has already been released by its copyright holder under a license that's free enough for Misplaced Pages's purposes or obtain the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder as explained here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
@Dillbob07: There are some examples of commonly used copyright licenses shown at WP:FCT, but basically anything indicating the copyright status of an image could, I guess, be considered a "license" so to speak. However, most copyright laws around the world these days don't require copyright formalities for something to be eligible copyright protection; copyright protection kicks in as soon as something considered eligible for copyright protection is published in some sort of tangible medium. So, pretty much anything you find online, in a print publication, or published by its original copyright holder in some other form should be considered to be eligible for copyright protection unless it clearly states it's not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Are we sure about The Treachery of Images?
As excited as I am about File:MagrittePipe.jpg to be in the public domain, the Center for the Study of the Public Domain has urged caution as it is unclear whether the work was actually "published" in 1929:
Magritte’s painting is actually a useful illustration of the intense difficulties in determining the copyright status of many works from long ago. It is only public domain in 2025 if it was “published,” as defined by copyright law, in 1929. If its first publication was not until later, for example at the Palais des Beaux-Arts exhibition in 1933, then the copyright lasts for 95 years after that year. (For never-published, never-registered works, the term is life + 70 years.) Publication dates can be more challenging to determine for art than it is for books, songs, or films, which were published when they were officially put on sale or released. Generally the law looks at whether the art was genuinely released to the public. If it was created but remained only in the artist’s studio, this did not count. But the rules are murky and “published” is a term of art in copyright law that was not well-defined. Early court cases suggest that artworks were considered published if they were exhibited without restrictions (sometimes there were measures preventing people from copying works on display), circulated in a magazine, catalogue, or other media with authorization, or offered for sale to the public.
Did any of these things occur in 1929 with The Treachery of Images? We are trying to find out. With the help of art historians and librarians, we have combed through catalogues and magazines from the era and biographies of Magritte. We discovered that another version of the image with the pipe reversed appeared in Variétés magazine—that image is public domain in 2025. But out of an abundance of caution we are still looking into the historical records for information about the famous painting before heralding its official entry into the public domain.
I'm not sure where to ask this, but I was looking for someone with better copyvio experience to look at the Attacks section of 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence. Particularly the 'Division' subsections. I've removed some very obvious copyvio, but a lot of seemingly close paraphrasing still remains. However I'm unsure exactly how problematic it is. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°12:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
The logo of the Indonesian military institution and the copyrigth
Bukansatya: Those logos have been removed from MV Sinar Kudus hijacking because there is no rationale for the use in that article. Each different article use of a non-free image MUST have a rationale specific to that use to justify it, and without it, it will be removed. Sometimes it may not be possible to justify such an additional use. ww2censor (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, this is a military engagement, so it is reasonable to include the logos of the units involved.
By the why Would it be possible to change the copyright status of these logos from non-free content to public domain? Many other military unit logos or emblems are classified as public domain. Bukansatya (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bukansatya: The licensing of the file's shouldn't be changed to public domain if the logos aren't within the public domain under the copyright law of the United States, the copyright law of Indonesia or both. Since English Misplaced Pages's servers are located in the US and file's uploaded to it can only be used on English Misplaced Pages, it's the copyright law of the United States that matters the most. The fact that other military unit logos are licensed as public domain could mean either (1) they're incorrectly licensed or (2) the particulars of the files aren't exactly the same. As for the non-free use of the files, Misplaced Pages's non-free content use policy generally allows the non-free use of such logos in stand-alone articles about the units themselves if the logos were used at the top of or in the main infobox of the article for primary identification purposes, or in a sub-section of such an article discussing the logo which is supported by citations to reliable sources: however, relevant policy never allows them to be used (I can't think of a single case where it does) in infoboxes of other articles (e.g. articles about battles) when they just being used as quasi-flag icons next to unit name. This is always considered to be a failure of WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER), WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS) and even MOS:LOGO. I doubt you'll be able to establish a consensus otherwise at WP:FFD, but you can try if you disagree. FWIW, the bot removed the files per WP:NFCCE because they failed WP:NFCC#10c as explained by Ww2censor above; so, adding the missing rationales to the files' pages will stop the bot from removing them again. However, non-free content use is required to meet all ten non-free content use criteria and failing even WP:JUSTONE means the use isn't considered valid. So, another user could still challenge their non-free use as being invalid. As I mentioned above, this type of non-free use is pretty much never considered valid and you're going to have a really hard time establishing anything different this time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi APK. The 2033 date is correct for the US. The painting is PD in countries where the copyright duration is life plus seventy, but that's irrelevant because neither of the countries that matter in this case use that term; Mexico is PD-100. Personally, I'd recommend removing PD-70 because it is confusing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
This film on wikipedia is illegal in European union and another countries. It should be limited to only ip's of USA. It would be not available on another countries. It must implement to secure only ip's of USA. It will be required VPN. Edwtie (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
On the English Misplaced Pages, run on Wikimedia servers located in the United States, generally only US copyright is considered. This is different for Commons files intended to be used in Wikipedias in a variety of languages. There, the policy is also to respect the copyright of the source country of a work. In this case, the work is entirely American in origin and can therefore be hosted on Commons as well as used in the English Misplaced Pages. Felix QW (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
But video's are still illegal to show in Europe. it's ilegal to due copy right notice in Europe. This video must be blocked at this regions europe,asia and america. It would be seen: This film is not available in this regio European Union and will showed only in USA. Edwtie (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is unable to restrict content based on where a user is located. Different languages are free to make policies about what content they will include in their articles. That means (for example) the German-language Misplaced Pages can refuse to have that file in their articles, on the assumption that people who choose German Wiki are in Germany where the file is not free. Each language's Misplaced Pages site is independent, and will make its own decisions based on whatever their policies are. Whether it meets Commons rules is something you will have to take up on that site, which is independent of the English Misplaced Pages (we just use their media in our articles). The file on Commons has an extensive note about where the image is vs isn't usable. DMacks (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe that this file satisfies the en:Misplaced Pages fair use criteria, but that it does not meet the Commons:Licensing requirements of Free content or Public domain. Somehow it was nevertheless move to Commons, where it was quite correctly deleted.
In order to prevent this or something like it happening again, I think that someone needs to check the fair use rational I have provided at File:Luo Bao Bei Timmy and Faye.jpg and indicate that this has been done. Or alternatively, tell me what else needs to happen. (Apologies I can't seem to link to the image without unintended consequences.) Andrewa (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Wonderful, thank you. I had it almost right as to what needed to happen, but I was following some blind leads. It all makes sense now. Andrewa (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
#/media/File:Kolinlamil.png){kind=link}
