Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/June

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

InterlockingPentagons

Concerning: Image:InterlockingPentagons.svg and its use on mini-mental state examination.

Cross-posting from WP:ANI. Two anons (155.41.160.31 (talk · contribs) and 24.60.18.243 (talk · contribs)) have raised the concern that a simple image (drawn by myself) of two interlocking pentagons is somehow "plagiarism" or a copyright violation. The image is part of a larger test of mental capability. This test was initially released in 1975 without copyright restrictions, but in 2001 a company based in Florida acquired the rights and started enforcing copyright on it. We used to list all the questions from the test, which were removed after we were made aware of the fact that the test was copyrighted.[1]

The anons now claim that:

Comments invited with regards to the status of the image, as well as the claim that we might be breaking the law. JFW | T@lk 06:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If by "released in 1975 without copyright restrictions", you mean it was first published without a copyright notice, it is now irrevocably in the public domain; see {{PD-pre1978}}. Second, a very simple shape like two pentagons is likely ineligible for copyright as in {{PD-ineligible}}. I'm not a lawyer but I think the uploader would win for those reasons if if ever came to a legal battle, but it's up to the uploader if they want to take that risk. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks RaWF. The problem is that a medical journal is not public domain. But your second point is well taken and I will wait for my friends to return and argue their point. JFW | T@lk 09:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Australian Government images

What would images from Australian Government websites be classed under? I've always thought they have been in public domain.

Hothguard11 (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that works of the Australian government typically are copyrighted and restricted to non-commercial non-derivative use. See the post a couple of sections up from here. With such restrictions they are non-free and may be used only in accordance with Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free content criteria. —teb728 t c 07:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Plymouth Blitz

{{helpme}}Can I upload this image onto Wikipedia (I'd prefer onto commons, though). If so what license should I give it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/image_galleries/it_came_to_our_door_book_gallery.shtml?6 }}

  • If you can find the image's author, maybe. I don't know what the image history is , so you might wanna do more research. Also, new posts in a talk page should go to the bottom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi. The copyright belongs to the author, and it only becomes public domain 70 years after their death. As this photo was presumably taken in the 1940s it does not yet qualify. Nor could you realistically argue that it is fair use. So I would say unfortunately no, not without permission of the copyright holder. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
But it's used as the front cover of the book It Came To Our Door and on the gallery on BBC, which put together a collabaration of World War Two photos that were "lost" for a long time. I doubt that the authoer of the book or the BBC have the author's direct permission. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Under the other info section for buying this book it says "Illustrations & Other Content Notes: 400 b&w photographs, many previously unseen". http://www.whsmith.co.uk/CatalogAndSearch/ProductDetails-It+Came+to+Our+Door+-9780954348038.html#
You would need to see the book to see what they say about ownership of copyright. The BBC can claim fair use where we cannot. They are also quite likely to have explicit permission. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems a little odd that these images from World War Two were put into a book and sold for money and now Wikipedia, a non profit organisation, cannot use the images to display the Plymouth Bliz. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe you were actually reviewing the wrong image here. Try try the link at the top of the section again. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw that. Unfortunately no one can comment on selling the book for money until you know more about the ownership of copyright. Perhaps the author of the book paid the author of the photo a shedload of cash and now you're proposing to give it away for free. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

How about these bad boys? Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Creator: Devon Library and Information Services

Title: World War 2 : German military intelligence documents

Imprint: : Devon Library Services

Date: 2003

Format: Web page : HTML

Series: Devon's heritage ; D941

Ref. no.: WEB NAZI

Coverage: Westcountry . World War 2 . Military intelligence . 1939-1945

Last Updated: 06/05/2005

I see no evidence that these are in the public domain (the works are credited so you may be able to check further). Also see Wikipedia:Public_domain#German_World_War_II_images and possibly ask at WP:MCQ. You should try looking for photos by US service personnel as they are usually in the public domain, or perhaps ask at one of the WikiProjects. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Eugh, EU proving as useful as ever in intergrating europe there! Anyway at the bottom of the section it says "However, fair use cases can be made in many cases". I need some help on how to upload a fair use image though... Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Blair_Witch_Project.jpg

why was this image removed, and where is the notification that it was up for deletion in the first place? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The image was deleted for not having a fair use rationale. See deletion log following the above redlink. Megapixie (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Now, how to go about seeing the image, so as to be able to verify that a user utilizing a bot did not make an error (Maxim was apparently using the bot to remove images beginning with the letter 'B') - in other words, how to see the deleted image? The image was apparently removed w/out discussion (ie, I couldn't find a note of it). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It indeed had no rationale (admins can see it, other users unfortunately can't), so the deletion was formally correct. However, since it's a movie poster of a notable film, I don't see why there should be a problem once a standard rationale is added. If you want to provide one, I can undelete it for you, I don't think anybody would object. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Images are tagged as questionable by bots, but they are deleted only by admins. And once deleted they can be viewed only by admins.
The bot posted a warning on the uploader’s talk page, User talk:Brandon.Weight. —teb728 t c 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, FutPerf, please undelete it, and I will provide a rationale. Clearly, the wisdom of watchlisting all the images of an article I am working on is apparent. Is there a reason why notice wasn't given in the article? It would seem (to me, at least) to be a no-brainer to post a notice int he article discussion page, since the uploader might be long gone, and the people working the article would have more interest in the deletion of an image being used in the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Done, undeleted. About notifications, there is a notification template that can be added to the article page itself, and I'd guess the bots are configured to do that routinely, but perhaps they have technical difficulties pasting the template if the image is being used in an infobox. You're right, it would be a good idea in such cases to post something on the talk page instead. Perhaps you could make that suggestion to the bot owners? It's not really for this page here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the undelete and the info. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

link the images

hello sir,

how can i link my images to other page. if i want to put my image to other pages is it possible..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratikppf (talk • contribs) 07:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

NFCC#8

Can anyone confirm that images used for purely decorative purposes in galleries fail this criterion? Thanks. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Images used for purely decorative purposes fail this criterion, galleries or no. WilyD 20:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ...and galleries fail, decorative or not. "Decorative" isn't a very useful concept, though. It's a counterexample to an image that has a suitably significant encyclopedic purpose and is not an over-use of non-free images per NFCC #3 and #8. In copyright law, decorative means exactly what it says - used for purposes of ornamentation. An image used solely to show what something looks like or to identify something (e.g. for a section heading or to use as a symbol) is not decorative, and most galleries are just that - a collection of images to show what things look like. Decorative might mean using an image as a border, or a background, to make everything look pretty. But our standard is much higher than that. Anyway, non-free images in galleries, decorative or not, are generally prohibited as failing #3 and #8. That's been a rather firm rule for at least the past year or so - no non-free images in galleries. Wikidemo (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Err, this is not really true. There are extremely exceptional cases where valid galleries use nonfree media. Better to worry about whether its decorative or instructional. WilyD 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It might be better to note the article where the possible issue is occurring, instead of asking folk to issue a blanket statemetn on matters that are often resolved on a case-by-case basis. I am guessing that this might be related to the London Overground article, where the anon presenting the issue here has been involved in an unresolved edit-war (noting the anon's usertalk space and contributions). Don't know about you folks, but I kinda hate being used. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Images copied from provincial ministry web-site

How do you indicate the copyright for an image copied from the province of British Columbia's Ministry of Advanced Education's web-site? I uploaded the picture I wanted to use, then got that notification about possible copyright violation even thought I provided the necessary source information. (Dawnalee8 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

I presume you are talking about Image:Org07 internet.gif which is copied from [4], the website states that all rights reserved so it is not free image than we can use on wikipedia. It might meet one of the criteria for use of Non-free images but I suspect it is not allowed as it can be replaced by either text or a similar (but not exact) self created image. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, this is going to be covered by Crown Copyright, which expires on January 1, 50 years after it was first published (Probably Jan 1 2059). In the meantime, create a free alternative presenting the same information without copyright that chart. Cheers, WilyD 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah pooh, okay I won't bother uploading that image to the Wiki article. Thanks anyway. (Dawnalee8 (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Non-exist organization's images

Hello, I'm a sysop from Vietnamese Wikipedia, a user there uploaded some photos which he said that it is from some booklets published by Ministries of Republic of Vietnam in 1960s. I'm very confused what license tags should be used and hope that experienced users here can help me. The issues are:

  1. As international practice, if a country is eliminated, all the copyright will follow the successive state (like Empire of Russia, USSR will be Russia, so Republic of Vietnam will be Socialist Republic of Vietnam).
  2. In Vietnam, the copyright law protects right for 50+ of author's life and everything will be in public domain (or as it says "not protected by law") if they are "official documents, legal documents of government, political organization; technical specifications,...". So, if a ministry published a booklet about news and photos, currently it is copyrighted in Vietnam.
  3. But the problem is, Republic Socialist of Vietnam doesn't recognize Republic of Vietnam's publications as they say "they were propaganda of older regime, and against the current communist regime".

So, what should I do with those images, I thought about fair-use, but I hope it will be the last solution. Vinhtantran (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference to your last point about non-recognition? Since vi.wikipedia is hosted in the USA this is governed mostly by whether or not the work is protected in the US which is a distinct question from how they are treated by the SRV. There is the possibility the work is protected in the US and is not in Vietnam (or vice versa). See Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights There was a question about the same topic last month here (Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2008/May#copyright regarding an extinct entity). Without clear evidence that the work really has no protection (see the various tests at the guideline page), the safe assumption is that it is protected in the USA and fair-use applies. – Zedla (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the above, point #2 appears to contradict itself. If I'm reading it correctly, all creative works produced by the Vietnamese government are in the public domain by default, therefore they are not currently copyrighted, nor will they ever be unless Vietnam changes the law. Meanwhile, non-governmental works are copyright for the life of the author plus 50 years. -- Hux (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You read incorrectly, Hux, I have read Copyright Law (Luật Sở hữu trí tuệ) and there is obviously no mention about what so-called "Government works", just government official documents (laws, guidelines,...). I have proposed to delete {{PD-VNGov}} in Vietnamese Wikipedia, and haven't received any objections. As Zedla said, I think I will choose the safe solution, use it with fair, and propose for deleting if it is not too necessary to article. Thank you. Vinhtantran (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of images from Press information Bureau

Can the images published by the Government of India in the Press informatin Bureau website can be uploaded into Wikipedia. The website claims its free and meant for the press/media/public. Source:[5]. The copyright holder is obviously the PIB. But they are stating that those images published can be used free can these images be used in Wikipedia.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please come to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. As the banner at the top says, this page is closed. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Similarly I would like to know about uploading the images from this site.[6] which give permission to use it for free "This photo is free for news media use." Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not considered free content on Wikipedia. It has to be usable by anyone. You could try WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the PIB website, it's said that anyone can use it for free.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Photos of copyrighted material

I'm having a conundrum with this photo (Image:NIN Tour posters.jpg being used in List of Nine Inch Nails tours). The photo itself is GFDL, so we're cool there, but it's a picture of posters that are probably copyrighted. In a way, it's somewhat similar to photos such as Image:CocaColaBottle.jpg being used in the Cola article. Both seem alright to me, but there's a shred of doubt in my mind. How should one handle something like this? Drewcifer (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The first question to answer, I think, is: is the use of the tour poster (which as you say is probably copyrighted) in this article considered "fair use"? In WP:NONFREE#Acceptable use it indicates that, for example, cover art and promotional posters in the right context can be considered fair use. However a little further down it in WP:NONFREE#Unacceptable use it says "The use of non-free media in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). Given below are further examples of images that, if non-free, may fail to satisfy the policy: 1. An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above." I'd say that a list of tours is enough like a discography to be covered by the same rule. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. But I guess my question is does the photo fall under GFDL or fair-use? Drewcifer (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Simple typography and geometric shapes are not copyrightable, so there's probably nothing in the poster that's copyrighted. The uploader of Image:Nine Inch Nails logo.svg has also tagged the logo as not eligible for copyright. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So to summarize (Rat at WikiFur, please correct me if I have it wrong): If the poster is copyrighted, then the image should be tagged as fair-use. If the poster is not copyrighted, then the image can be tagged with the photograph's license (GFDL). I would have thought the poster would be copyrightable, but Rat at WikiFur has suggested that it is not. I'd go with his advice since he's been answering copyright questions here for quite a while now and still learning all the intricacies. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We have per previous precedent, Image:Nine Inch Nails logo.svg, that the NIN logo is not copyrightable. The rest of the poster is facts in bare form in simple typography. While it will have to be {{trademark}} tagged because of the logo, the photographer can choose the license, and if he chooses a Wikipedia-compatible license, it doesn't require a fair use rationale. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That definately clears it up for me. Thanks. Drewcifer (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding Pictures

How do I add a picture to a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darbyji (talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See this page for a full explanation of how to upload and use images. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Aozora Bunko

Re: Image:Aozora Bunko how-to-make illustration.png? Image talk:Aozora Bunko how-to-make illustration.png#Fair use?
I recently uploaded what I considered to be "fair use" images for use only in Aozora Bunko -- an article about a Japanese digital library and public-policy advocacy group. Sdrtirs examined the support information for both of them, finding one to be adequate and the other not.

While I regret my errors in properly documenting the modest argument for fair use, I don't quite know how this happened nor do I understand how to correct my mistakes. Using the format of the one image which seems to have been successfully uploaded, I tried to create a full and detailed explanation at Talk:Aozora Bunko#Fair use. Doubtless there is something more I should do now, but what must seem obvious to you remains opaque to me. I'm simply asking for direction? --Tenmei (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first, Image:Aozora Bunko how-to-make illustration.png doesn't seem to be a logo, so I replaced it with a generic fair use template. Check to make sure it looks okay to you now. Second, Image:N0-70.png is simple enough that it may not be copyrighted at all and you can use it as {{PD-textlogo}} without needing a rationale. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Initially, I would have thought that this particular paper-folding image was altogether too insignificant; but I was moved to upload it because the article inspired what I took do be a good faith complaint. As it happens, Aozora Bunko was merely a digitial library up until 2006; and I found myself facing a persistent critic who seemed to believe that additional information about copyright law was a kind of corrupting irrelevancy. He simply could not understand any explanations --- and all efforts to explain were unavailing, despite the linked in-line citations and references. These two graphics -- simple though they may be -- seemed to represent some kind of tipping point which helped clarify whatever unresolved issues there were. In this instance, a graphic "picture" really did seem to be more powerful than words ...; but then I somehow managed to mishandle the uploading protocols. As you can imagine, I was beginning to feel quite frustrated -- all of which is to say that your input was truly appreciated far beyond what would have seemed normal. --Tenmei (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This was a pointless effort. I paid attention to the urgent threat from a robot that I must deal with questions immediately. I did seek advice, and I followed it -- only to have another robotic message bothering me with a new complaint, this one no more understandable than the first. This wasn't worth the effort. I'm sorry I invested any time in this exercise. --Tenmei (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It's okay, I'm taking care of it. I've watchlisted the images. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Chisel at Maxwell's image

I own the negatives and the prints of these images—the image was also properly credited to the photographer. They are property of the band of which I was a member. Why have they been removed—twice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonialboy (talk • contribs) 16:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright is held by the photographer, unless specifically transferred in writing(except in the narrow case of a work for hire). The ownership of the physical photograph is irrelevant. If it is the case that you are the copyright holder, explain how you came to hold the copyright on the image description page. Otherwise, see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Autographs

What do you think about copyright for autographs? Something like this: [7]. Do the heirs of these persons hold copyright for this? May I upload this scan to national section or to Commons? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Signatures are not eligible for copyright, according to Signature#Copyright. In Wikipedia, you can tag them {{PD-ineligible}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hello,

I am trying to upload a free image Image:Eliteweb.jpg but I am being told it has been deleted. I am not sure how to get it un-deleted, or rather get the permission to upload it again. the image is located at http://www.eliteanswers.com/img/media/logos/EliteAnswers_High_Resolution.jpg

Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yitzhaac Pesach (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be very much not a free image. It would likely be usable under fair use in an Elite Answers article, but no such article seems to exist. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How do I add a tag a photo that I have uploaded ?

Hello .. have warning message from robot .. How do I add a tag a photo that I have uploaded ? below are 3 such file .. can you show me example of how I add the Public tag.

Image:COA doc.jpg Image:Coat of Arms 1615.jpg Image:Conti de Wlassm.jpg

Thanks Vlasime (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you've tagged them {{GFDL-self}} because you took the pictures, correct? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello .. Yes I have photos of all the documents ( in fact I have many of the original documents ) .. the ones from 1593 and Daun Arch. are in Museum in Bruno( Czech Republic )but photos of them were sent to me for my use ... all are listed in Buro under family name / title Jankovsky z Vlasimi since they were created for us .. thanks for your review !Vlasime (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright tag renaming

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Image_copyright_tags for a centralized discussion on bringing our copyright tag names into compliance. MBisanz talk 03:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

permission to use articles

Hi I want to use your articles in one of the textbooks i'm writing. can i down load the articles and acknowledge it in the acknowledgements page or is there any other procedure for obtaining permission to use the articles in my textbooks.

Thanks Revathi 59.94.247.214 (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:REUSE should answer your questions on this front. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Festspiele Balver Höhle

Hi, i guess these images are Public Domain. Do you agree? --Weissmann (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm not familiar with German copyright law, so everything I say would be based on my understanding of the US laws. The creator of the work automatically holds the copyright. ("Under the Berne Convention, copyrights for creative works do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically in force at creation." (see Copyright#History). In the US that is true from 1978 on (see Template:PD-Pre1978).) What makes you think it might be in the public domain?
I think the {{Non-free newspaper image}} is the correct one and I think fair use can easily be claimed.
However, I think the images are of too high resolution since the writing can easily be read. Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text 2 lists the following as unacceptable use: "3. An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the article in text form with the article cited as a source."
Do you have a scan of the cover of the flyer to use instead? --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ishi, first let me say "thank you" for your help. Let me add a cover of the flyer so we can decide later which is the best way to expand this article on a proper way. All the best --Weissmann (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Images without copyright

Apropos the message received by me, I have added the copyright details for image MVD1.jpg, for which Im the copyright holder. But Im not sure who holds the copyright for the following nine images:

Agamben 1.jpg
Agamben 2.jpg
Agamben 3.jpg
Zizek 1.jpg
Zizek 6.jpg
Zizek 8.jpg
SP 2.jpg
SP 3.jpg
Shelley Pollock.jpg

As a new user, these images were uploaded by me without ascertaining the copyright particulars. I request contributors and editors to ascertain copyright of these nine images. If this is not possible, I recommend the deletion of these nine images.

Nikhilesh. 10.25, 4th June, 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us any clues about where these images came from, who might have taken them, where you found them? Without more information, there isn't much we can do. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about licensing

I am the author of a Wikipedia entry on the Israeli engineer and business executive Dov Frohman. I have access to a quality photo of Frohman used on the book jacket of his recent book and also online at: [8].

Frohman is happy with using this photo on Wikipedia, but it's unclear to me who owns the rights (Frohman, the photographer). At any rate, I think it's likely we can use the image. My question: what do I (or Frohman or the photographer) need to do create a GFDL-compatible license? I'm a real neophyte about this so basic help would be greatly appreciated.

Rash21954 (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a written agreement otherwise, or it falls under the narrow definition of a work for hire, the photographer owns the copyright. Also, whoever the copyright holder is, they have to choose a license that allows anyone to use the photo, not just Wikipedia. See WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright question

I have, via e-mail, been granted to use an image on an article, which the contact person in question holds the copyright to. How can i reflect this permission properly on the image description page? Will mentioning that i was in contact with the owner and a date be enough? Am i supposed to post contents of the back-and-forth e-mails? Or what else? Thanks. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be sure you understand, permission to use an image only on Wikipedia is not acceptable; the permission must allow reuse by anyone for any thing. See WP:COPYREQ for what permission is required and how to submit it. —teb728 t c 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I was not aware, thanks for pointing that out. That voids my question. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 21:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiram Burnett

I have encountered a situation that is new to me with respect to the above-noted page, and think I need someone more knowledgeable to step in. The material is plainly an exact duplicate of material on another web page (I've cited the web page in the "db copyvio" notice I placed on the page) but the material is fairly clearly copied from a source that is asserted to be in the public domain, and is said to be part of something called the "Washington Biography project", or words to that effect. It's that last bit that worries me; the public domain material has apparently been published by an official source (Washington State, USA) as part of a larger project of accumulating biographic material. Can someone have a look at this page and remove the copyvio tag if it seems appropriate? Thanks in advance to whomever considers this. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the credit at the top of [9], it was transcribed from "An Illustrated History of the State of Washington, by Rev. H.K. Hines, D.D., The Lewis Publishing Co., Chicago, IL. 1893". Any work published before 1923 in the US is public domain. If it was simply transcribed into electronic format, no new copyright was created, and it is still public domain. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt assistance with this: I'll go and remove the copyvio tag. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:New South Wales Police Force use of image

A little bot problem with {{New South Wales Police Force}} and Image:NSWPF logosmall.jpg.

I refer to Wikipedia:Help desk#Non free use image in template problem..

I am aware of the template exclusion for fair use images but thought there was an exemption for when the image was explicitly and solely depicting the legal personality which held the rights to the image.

The image in question could be used on each page the template is being used on. So why cannot the image appear in a template which provides the common information to the pages. This is what templates are for.

Please note that there are other templates like this one, see Category:Snapshotinfoboxes.

What needs to be done so that that an exemption can be made for templates like this, that is, templates which contain tangible encycyclopedic content, for use encyclopedically, they are not navigation boxes, etc.?

I could work around the problem by putting the relevant material into a main space "article" and transcluding it using : prefixes, but this is likely to be inelegant and produce a clunky looking article. However, I should not have to do this from a fair use aspect, because the material is being used identically, whether it is in a template in template space, in a "template" in main space, or repeated in each article in main space.

Perhaps the whole template could be managed as fair use content once it has a fair use image content in it ?


In short, how can you put encylcopedic content containing a fair use image into a template so that it can be used on multiple pages, where the image in the page DOES comply with fair use requirements?

Peet Ern (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


These are just my thoughts on the matter... Per WP:LOGO, "Copyrighted logos, like all non-free media, require a separate use rationale in the image description each time they are used in an article. The template {{logo fur}} may help editors construct a rationale." If a logo were used in a template, it wouldn't really be possible to list the separate use rational for each article it was used in. In addition, it could be argued, since the image is part of the template, that no one has studied each article and verified that the use of the logo on that page is covered by fair use.
In fact, with a quick look, I'd say the logo really should not be used on Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service.
So, for me, I'd say it has to do with the lack of control over which articles it gets included in and the lack of fair use rational on a page-by-page basis. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The logo would need a rationale for each article the template is used in I would think though the use of the logo in a template could be considered as decoration which is not allowed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ishi Gustaeder and MilborneOne.

I do understand the issue. What you have advised above, very clearly and succinctly actually, reinforces my underlying concern that the issue is not really one of copyright but rather managing the copyright, and is a problem of technology, and how it interplays with policy. If, for example a template once it contained fair use material was managed as fair use material, subject to all the same rules, a rationale each time it is used, then there would be no problem. If for example a fair use reason has to be provided to enable the template to present the infobox at all, then the rules are satisified. The problem will be getting admins and bots to recognise a new way of complying with the fair use copyright rules.

I also agee that the royal commission article is not correct fair use.

I will see about modifying the template to insist on a fair use rationale. The problem will be that the fair use rationale for the image will be in the article using the image, not with the image, which some might argue is where it should be anyway.

Cheers.

Peet Ern (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Rules for using Fair Use images in sandbox

I use sandbox at bottom of my user page to prep articles before uploading them to thier final home. Sometimes article includes Fair Use imgage. Just had Oregon State Parks logo deleted from sandbox page even though it was image for article on Collier Memorial State Park--a legitimate Fair Use article for Oregon State Park logo. In this case, I already finished/uploaded article so nothing was lost. However, want to be sure I understand rules for using Fair Use images in sandboxes?--Orygun (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's official policy that non-free images are not allowed on user pages: in general, such usage is inconsistent with US copyright law and although there are some situations in which it's not, the Trustees have decided to err on the side of caution. One major factor as to why they're not allowed is that user pages are wide open to public browsing. What might be acceptable is if you moved the sandbox from your user page to a sub-page (e.g. just edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Orygun/sandbox). The only way that page can be seen by others is if someone searches for it using Special:PrefixIndex (unlikely) or they just randomly type the address in (really, really, unlikely). Does that help?-- Hux (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Non-free images may not be used at all outside of main namespace, and there are bots and other users going around who will remove them if they are. Add the image after you have moved the article into mainspace. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Can certainly do that. Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Fair rationale use"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KennedyBaird


The message at the bottom of the page, could someone explain it in more detail for me?

Thanks, Kennedy (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC).

It looks like someone already fixed it. See WP:FURG if you need more background. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How can i upload the image file for my own page?

Hi,

i want to upload some image files for my own page in Wkipedia.

i cannot find the option to upload the image files from my computer..

its showing like don't have permissions, copyrights, etc..

is there anyway to make my own page with my files from the computer..

Please give me a solution for this..

tregards, Prabu.ravichandran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabu.ravichandran (talk • contribs) 07:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are the photographer or sole creator of the images, then you are the copyright holder, and you decide which license to put your work under. See WP:ICTIC. Otherwise, please tell us more about the images you want to upload. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Material from Kremlin.ru

I've just started a PUI debate here, but I see now that there are others. Basically, the Kremlin gives this permission-

All materials on the Presidential website may be reproduced in any media outlets, on Internet servers or on any other information supports without restriction on the amount of material and time of publication. This authorisation covers equally newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV channels and Internet sites. The only condition is that any reproduction or broadcasting of the website’s materials contain a reference to the original source. No prior approval from the Presidential Press and Information Office is required to reprint information from the website.

This appears to give permission only for informational use, and does not give explicit permission for modification. This means that, by Wikipedia standards, the images are non-free, right? J Milburn (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"without restriction on the amount of material" seems to imply to me that the content can be changed. The original material in any derivative work is a variable amount. I am pretty certain this is free enough for us. There may also be other relevant Russian government statutes as well, although I'm not aware of them. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's clear from the phrase, "the only condition", that attribution is the sole restriction placed on the use of works from Kremlin.ru; any other use, modification, etc., is permitted. In addition, Russian copyright law makes several classes of works public domain by default, meaning that even attribution is not required in those cases. See the template {{PD-RU-exempt}} for more info. -- Hux (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Images of music album covers and book covers

What about adding to an article an image of the cover of a music album? Can it be copyright infringement? By the way, what about adding an image of the cover of a book?

Thanks in advance.

User:Alfredo J. Herrera Lago —Preceding comment was added at 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NONFREE covers these in section 2.1 Acceptable use and 2.2 Unacceptable use. In particular it says the following is acceptable use: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." Whereas for unacceptable use it says: "The use of non-free media in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8).". So it is definitely okay to use the cover art for an article on that book or album. It also says it's not okay to use it in a discography. Other uses would be a gray area and would have to be handled on a case by case basis. (FWIW, I take a more strict view and would tend to say "no" where others say "yes", but that's just me.) --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

copyright status

what would i choose on the fair use for a screenshot of a DVD from a band if the screenshot is being used to illustrate the band. I need to find an image for the band Pain For Pleasure, but since they are an alter-ego band, who hasn't ever played live, they are featured in a Mockumentary on a bonus DVD from a Sum 41 album. This is really the only coverage they have had. Any suggestions? please post them on my talk page. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably {{Non-free music video screenshot}}. Make sure you add a fair use rationale explaining why a free replacement couldn't be made, similar to what you wrote here. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving image from commons back to en.wikipedia

The following image Image:USDHScrestred.jpg was uploaded with the wrong license and ended up on commons. It is not a free image the correct license is -non-free-logo and requires a fair use rationale. How does one go about getting the image off of commons and back on en.Wikipedia at which point fixing the license and FUR is a simple matter. Dbiel (Talk) 01:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not definitely non-free - the summary is ambiguous: "uploaded with permission from the school's website administration" could mean that the school has given permission for it to be freely usable (which means the license is accurate), or it might mean that they gave permission only for it to be uploaded to Wikipedia (in which case the license is wrong and non-free-logo/fair use rationale is the way to go). However, the Commons is pretty strict on this stuff so it probably should be removed. What you could do is first save the image to your computer, remove it from any Wikipedia pages, then nominate it for deletion from the Commons (see Commons:Deletion guidelines). While that's happening, you could upload the image separately to Wikipedia (with a different filename) with the correct license. -- Hux (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)