Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arkatakor (talk | contribs) at 03:43, 11 July 2010 (→Licensing Issue regarding File:Vassula.jpg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

• WP:CQ
• WP:MCQ
• WP:IMAGEHELP
• WP:ICHD

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

1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
2. From the page Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
   • 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.
3. 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.
4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
5. Hit Publish changes.
6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.

How to ask a question

1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
4. 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!

Click here to start a new discussion

Archives

Archive list Archive year 2006 Closed Archive year 2007 Closed Archive year 2008 Closed Archive year 2009 Closed Archive year 2010 Closed Archive year 2011 Closed Archive year 2012 Closed Archive year 2013 Closed Archive year 2014 Closed Archive year 2015 Closed Archive year 2016 Closed Archive year 2017 Closed Archive year 2018 Closed Archive year 2019 Closed Archive year 2020 Closed Archive year 2021 Closed Archive year 2022 Closed Archive year 2023 Closed Archive year 2024 Open Some pre-2009 archives from pages now merged here (note: more recent questions from these pages can be found at WP:MCQ or its archives above.) Requested copyright examinations archives Can I use... 2005-2006 archive Can I use... January-August 2007 archive Can I use... August-December 2007 archive Misplaced Pages:Image copyright help desk/Archive 1 Misplaced Pages:Image copyright help desk/Archive 2 This page serves as a portal for Yearly archives, inside the archives are in month format, please see the Archives in the sidebox. Thanks.

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Cambridgeshire Collection images

The Cambridgeshire Collection 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 Little Thetford and perhaps one of them in William Sole. More details of the Little Thetford use at Talk:Little Thetford#A photographic history. 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.

The rear of each photograph is stamped as follows:

CAMBRIDGESHIRE COLLECTION
PRINT print reference
NEG negative reference
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT
PERMISSION & ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
CAMBRIDGESHIRE LIBRARIES

Your advice would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. --Senra (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• A primer on requesting copyright permissions is available at Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission. Using that, you can more formally request release of the works you want to use under a free license. A permission to use on Misplaced Pages 'license' is meaningless to us. Either it's free licensed, or we use it under terms of fair use and our policy at WP:NFCC governs such usage. Are these historically important images that can not be replaced by someone taking a photograph today? --Hammersoft (talk) 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 William Sole) now a row of semi-detached houses
• Old windmill and Cable ferry across the River Great Ouse. See Photograph of The Public Ferry taken about 1905, from the site of the old Chapel. Neither exist any more
• Roundhouse. Still exists but not as it did then. The old photograph shows two cottages which is one house now. --Senra (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2010 (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."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledging that I have seen your post, Wehalt. I will re-post here when I get a response back from library --Senra (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have heard back from the library as follows

Subject: Little Thetford images

Good Morning,

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.

Many thanks

Sender blanked as this is a public website

Cambridgeshire Collection

Central Library

Cambridgeshire Libraries, Archives and Information.

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. --Senra (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (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. --Senra (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I would welcome a 2nd opinion, particularly for the three horseshoes and roundhouse images. --Senra (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding adding an image to an article

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardo111 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In short, no, because someone could always go take a free picture of the college building. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

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? Terence laoshi (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ICTIC. 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. -Andrew c  14:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Images from Iran?

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? Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally Iran copyright lasts for 30 years after the author's death or date of publication, whichever is later per commons:COM:L#Iran so, because US licencing is longer, so the 1963 or 1978 dates mentioned in commons:COM:L#United States might apply. You will find many other countries' licencing there too. ww2censor (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the USA doesn't have copyright relations with Iran; as Copyright in Iran 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. Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct that Iran has no copyright relations with the USA but Jimbo has stated here that we should respect Iran's copyright as also mentioned at WP:C#Governing copyright law. ww2censor (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

So we can't simply tag it as PD-US and add a {{Do not move to Commons}}? Nyttend (talk) 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.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo copyright in book

Hi. I have a copy of Images of Reading and Surrounding Villages, published in 1971 1995 by the Reading Evening Post. 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 WP:PD? The opening pages give the standard "no reproduction without prior permission". Cheers, matt (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2010 (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? -Andrew c  14:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why I wrote 1971, it was published in 1995. The copyright notice at the beginning of the book is "© Reading Evening Post; Harold Hill, 1995". Below this is an "acknowledgements" section which implies there are four parties who have "loaned pictures or allowed the use of them" – Reading Library, Francis Frith, the Reading Evening Post, and an individual. There is nothing next to the photographs to be able to identify who took which. matt (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2010 (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.-Andrew c  19:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. And when you find out that it is PD, then upload it OTRS pending and forward the email to permissions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

drug dealing in south hedland 2005 2006

has there been much documentation on the enormous amount of illegal drugs sold in that period of time in south hedland wa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpadd211 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Reference desk. MECU≈talk 01:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect credit on a picture of São Paulo

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Saopaulo_noite.jpg

"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:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rigues/2435945512/in/photostream/

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigues (talk • contribs) 04:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

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. Robert Skyhawk 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. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

PEFC logo

Currently the PEFC logo is used on international and local wikipedia pages 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?

PEFC website 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.

PEFC ST 2001:2008 - PEFC Logo Usage Rules - Requirements

--Ssavilam (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We do not accept permissions such as that. See WP:PERMISSION. All permissions must release content under a free license compatible with our mission. That said, the image in question File:PEFClogo.JPG is currently being used without permission under a claim of "fair use", in conjunction with our strict non-free content guidelines WP:NFC. 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. -Andrew c  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. Swarm 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. -Andrew c  19:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Which state do you mean? There are some governments that release their work into the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 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. -Andrew c  02:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Minnesota also does, and California apparently too; see Commons:Template:PD-MNGov and Commons:PD-CAGov. Judging by the wording on the California template, no other US states do. Nyttend (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Elephant Celebes

According to its article, this painting was produced and sold in 1921, but the image is currently tagged as nonfree with a fair use rationale. Is there any good reason not to treat this like File:Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ.jpg? Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done. Robert Skyhawk 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've reverted to a larger resolution version. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

question

i have a permission of the photographer to use a (c) image. what license is that? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokmer (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PERMISSION. 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 WP:CONSENT 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).-Andrew c  04:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

non-free media File:Hitler_and_Franco.JPG

Someone with a strong familiarity with non-free media fair use needs to look at the usage of File:Hitler_and_Franco.JPG, 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... — raeky  04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a case for strong familiarity. WP:NFCC #10c 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. -Andrew c  04:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of. — raeky  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 WP:NFCC#8. Personally I suggest you take it to Non-free content review. ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• sigh* I don't really have much divested interest in this image, a user nominated it for a FPC 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. — raeky  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. -Andrew c  15:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion here. ww2censor (talk) 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 Template:Non-free historic image for historic photos that meet all 10 WP:NFCC (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 WP:PERMISSION. Make sure you check out our sample e-mails, because we require specific information in a WP:CONSENT form/release. -Andrew c  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.--Wehwalt (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

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 WP:PERMIT. You can add {{db-author}} 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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.244 (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

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 {{OTRS pending}} 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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded a file:

http://en.wikipedia.org/File:VassulaRyden.jpg

and following your instructions added the {{OTRS pending}} 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.

PC David Rathband

Hi, I'd like to upload these images of PC David Rathband to illustrate the 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt 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.--Joopercoopers (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that PD is applicable (the police have not formally relinquished all their rights), and WP:NFC#UULP would preclude the files' inclusion as fair-use. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 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. --Joopercoopers (talk) 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.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 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? Canterbury Tail talk 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. --Joopercoopers (talk) 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. Fences&Windows 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? Gezzza _talk 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 Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_45#fair_use_with_video_clips.3F, especially User:Masem's comment at the end. Theleftorium 12:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, the reason why I asked because I like to add the video to The Harbingers (Atmosfear series)#Video, 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. Gezzza _talk 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 here, 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)? VernoWhitney (talk) 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. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 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. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with explaining copyrights

File:Arles portrait bust.jpg is a very recent picture of an ancient Roman object. 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 uploader 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. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am not the uploader, however the uploader 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 WP:UCS 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 User talk:Ceoil to supply a new image?...Modernist (talk) 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 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.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have the right people; see National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts. Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• And, looking at the source of the image, right at the bottom of that page it says "photo © : C.Chary/DRASSM ". Not that it needed to have a copyright displayed, but what more proof do we need that this image is in fact copyrighted? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's what I tried to say. Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I understand the reasoning, I just don't agree with it...Modernist (talk) 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the image from the Commons, as the source page clearly says photo © : C.Chary/DRASSM. When it comes to reproductions of PD art, 2D vs. 3D makes a big difference. This image is 3D, so Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. doesn't apply. Is there any reason why a user couldn't photograph this bust? Is there a valid fair use rationale? I'd be glad to restore the file here as a non-free image, but we don't allow non-free images because our users haven't gotten around to creating the free equivalent yet. Either it's not possible to create a free image and thus we allow the non-free, or it is possible, and we don't allow non-free. Which one is it? (use common sense here... ;) -Andrew c  19:23, 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...Modernist (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy prevails over whatever people think common sense is. WP:NFCC 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 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 WP:NFCC #1? 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? -Andrew c  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 Arles Museum of Antiquity. 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...Modernist (talk) 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. -Andrew c  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...Modernist (talk) 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wharrves (talk • contribs) 14:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

link File:Seiler instrument home office.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wharrves (talk • contribs) 14:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Have a look at Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission and follow the instructions there. Alternatively, can you take a photograph of this building yourself and post it? --Hammersoft (talk) 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)

File:ODXQ.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngoc ly (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The idea is to send an email stating this as in WP:PERMIT. With your posting we cannot see where the email came from. I also removed your email. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

How do I

How do I post a new article on Misplaced Pages ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.247.187 (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Create a new account and type the name of your article in the search box, or go to WP:AFC to get started without logging on. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use?

I believe, but am not sure, that my fair use rationale for using File:1595147.jpg, 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsayre64 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think the image selection isn't what you want. I presume you're referring to this image. You'd be much better off using this image, and adding {{non-free logo}} to the image description page, along with a fair use rationale for Oregon Community Credit Union. 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 Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Old photograph in old book

This 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? Scolaire (talk) 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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 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 Public Domain), since he died more than 70 years ago. You should be able to upload the image to Commons using their PD-old-75 template (1931+75=2006). Since it's in the Public Domain, you can make any modifications you would like before uploading. Robert Skyhawk 03:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that template. Scolaire (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Loren.JPG

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 WP:COI editing at Loren Galler-Rabinowitz 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, PageantUpdater talk • contribs 11:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OTRS (it's basically the same as Commons). E-mails with permission go to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, as described at WP:CONSENT. TheFeds 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.) TheFeds 02:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

File:USRA-Logo.png

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. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• It isn't. I've re-tagged it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

LeBron James copyrighted getty image

File:LBJ_MIA.jpg

This image should be removed immediately for violation of copyright. From getty images: http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/102771090/Getty-Images-Sport -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 16:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

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, speedy deletion criterion F9 applies, and I've tagged it. The uploader has been informed on his talk page. TheFeds 20:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Frances Hodgson Burnett image question

I'm expanding Frances Hodgson Burnett 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 this 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. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 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 File:Frances_Burnett.jpg, it explains that it's old so there is no copyright. MECU≈talk 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? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

File O. DXQ.jpg

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.

Below is the permission from Dr. Dinh Xuân Quan, the only son of Judge Dinh Xuân Quang:

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. 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)

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngoc ly (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages:Contact_us/Permit. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages copyright
• Misplaced Pages help forums