Unblock YouTube Videos - Free YouTube Web Proxy Site, Free YouTube Proxy | Tubeunblock
The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20101026141902/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Help index: Any questions? · Cheatsheet · Editor's welcome · FAQ · Glossary · Live help: IRC (IRC Tutorial) Web · Help desk · Reference desk · Tutorial

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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 Wikipedia:Image 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 Wikipedia. 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 the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons 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.; {{GFDL-self}}), 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 Save page.
  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 ask your question" link above.
  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.

Contents




[edit] passport images in galleries and passport images with the uploader as "owner"

I have been looking at the images used in the image gallery of list of passports and the image gallery at Biometric passport and am afraid most images have 1 or 2 issues:

  1. The source is "self". Thus the uploader has identified himself as the sole copyright holder. Although he/she might have made the scan and/or the upload him/herself, this does not mean they are the copyright holder as that is generally the state. It therefore also means that they can not automatically be released under a free licence.
  2. Many others are uploaded under a fair use rationale. That means they can only be used if this is required to illustrate the subject and no alternative can be found. Furthermore, the rationale specific to the page where it is used should be added (and this is never done for these lists). I guess fair use can be reliably claimed for use on a specific passport page (e.g. the German passport cover on German passport), but not for use in a gallery (WP fair use: The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered.).

If I am right, then the "self" images should be changed from a free use to a fair use licence and they should be removed from the lists along with all other fair use images. This would probably reduce the gallery to less than 20 images I guess... I hope however I am not right and overlooking something; and also would not know how exactly to proceed. Let me know what you think! L.tak (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I realize this post was a bit too long, as I originally planned to post it at Talk:biometric passport. I would appreciate however to hear if I am right and what the easiest way is to proceed (e.g. is batch rename of the copywrite type and general fair use rational needed?); and whether a list exists on wikipedia of countries where government-items are copyright free...L.tak (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what it means that I received no comments here; but I'll just assume it is because I was completely right ;-) . So... is anyone able to help with the batch-change of the images to fair use? The rest I think I can handle myself... L.tak (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It probably means that either no one noticed or cared (no disrespect, just saying). One good way of getting some comments is to nominate for deletion a couple of the ones at commons, which obviously can't be used for fair use.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no copyright experience, but maybe the focus should be not on removal of the images, but on formulating the "justification reason" why they are used in the gallery. If it is acceptable to use a passport image on the passport page, I can't see why it wouldn't be acceptable to use it on a passports gallery page. I assume that the general "not to be used in gallery/table, except if ..." note was added, because most fair-use images are copyrighted by companies, that don't allow their logo to be put in a table with their competitors logos - or something along these lines. Alinor (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I have also very limited copyright experience and would like to keep the images (uploaded some myself). However when looking at the requirements I see nowhere that it would not apply to governments, so my guess is that we have to apply it; and that would mean in most cases that they are only possible under fair use rationale. But as said I don't feel confident enough to start this without a meaningful discussion here; and I personally don't feel like starting deletion nominations on this (but thanks for the advise Wehwalt ;-)). So as far as I am concerned nothing will change unless a consensus forms here that it should... L.tak (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
There are quite a few images of passport covers on commons. But I agree that in general they should be considered copyright works and only available under a free use license (see e.g this clear assertion of copyright in the front cover of the British passport by the UK govt - http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/reproduction-british-passport.pdf). So I agree that those images uploaded under a non-fair use rationale probably need to be changed unless a govt has specifically released their passport cover into the public domain. Ajbpearce (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info; I will see if I can find a procedure to change all english wikipedia non fair use passport images this weekend; this way they can stay for sure at the individual passport pages (e.g. British passport). Would you think there is a fair use rationale that I can add to keep them on the list of passports or the gallery at biometric passports; or does this indeed mean they will have to go there? L.tak (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, Wikipedia policies on fair use are primarily designed to minimise risk by being more restrictive than the relevant US law, in this case I would suggest that the risk is very low and that we should probably consider the images of passport covers to be similar to images of copyrighted stamps or currency which are regularly used in similar styles of lists. While there is probably no detailed policy, my personal view would be that provided a separate fair use rationale is provided for the usage then there should be no problem with keeping the usage there. Ajbpearce (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree they should be allowable as fair use images in the same spirit as the stamps/currency classes. It leaves me with a question and a conclusion:

Help on the first point and comment on the second is welcome! L.tak (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit]

I can't for the life in me work out why the British Rail logo has a fair use template on it. Surely a logo such as this, made up solely of simple shapes, does not meet the threshold of originality. However, while I am pretty certain the logo is PD, I thought I would check here before changing anything. Cheers, BigDom More tea, vicar? 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Because the threshold of creative effort for applicability of copyright differs from country to country? In the US, logos containing text and simple shapes are usually not copyright but then nor is the font from which they are formed, because (a) US caselaw has decided that text based logos contain no creative content and (b) US law specifically rejects the copyrighting of certain things that are utilitarian, fonts being one of them. In other countries, the threshold is set differently/different things are included/there has been different caselaw. The old BR logo is by no means 'simple shapes', there is clearly enough of a creative element to allow copyright at least in the UK.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
What simple shapes is the logo made up of? Square? Triangle? Circle? I see the big red rectangle, but the inner white shape is not describable in simple terms exactly, now is it?-Andrew c [talk] 22:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The inner white shape is two rectangles and three parallelograms. Hardly the most creative thing I've ever seen. BigDom More tea, vicar? 12:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Because the strokes are not outlined, we don't know if the artist simply combined 3 parallelograms or drew the shape with a single continuous stroke. But I guess that is beside the point. We generally err on the side of caution, and I'll admit this is a bit of a grey area, but my personal opinion is we shouldn't tag it as being free based on ToO. Elen appears to agree. Maybe we can wait for more opinions, but again, these are just opinions. -Andrew c [talk] 15:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

BigDom, it is copyright in the UK. It may or may not be copyright in the US, but it would take a court case to decide once and for all. I wouldn't like to substitute my judgement for the US legal system, so would prefer to leave it as it is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Help request for possible copyright violation

All three images at Mechanical Gecko appear to have been copied from an online article [1] on the topic. Having never tagged an image for possible copyright violations, I'm not sure how to proceed. Assistance would be appreciated.--Koppas (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Upon inspection, if you click on the image on that article, you'll see it was uploaded by a man with the user ID "sunwenfeng" (that site is too a wiki, apparently). The person who uploaded the images on Wikipedia commons is "Wenfengsun0". If you're still suspicious, you can click on the image here at en.wp, click the description page there part below to bring you to the image on commons, then click "no permission" on the box on the left, which will start the deletion process and inform the user s/he must provide proof of ownership. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I couldn't find a clickable "no permission" link on the page, but did find the appropriate template ({{no permission}}) at Commons.--Koppas (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright status of stone marker

I took a picture of some informational signs, and learned that signs, in general are under copyright, so I've requested removal of them. However, I am unclear about the status of this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Nathan_Hale_Homestead_stone_marker.JPG&oldid=45139883 Is it under copyright? (The date on it is 1937, if that is relevant).--SPhilbrickT 16:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to say the text is possibly {{PD-ineligible}}, but if not, then {{PD-Pre1978}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the pre-1978 is fairly clearly applicable, so may be the safer way to go? Perhaps the other one is applicable, but I can't point to why.--SPhilbrickT 17:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see discussion at this FAC (you might want to search for "marker"). In other words, there seems to be doubt that a stone marker is "publlished". Were copies available to the public? I'm more of the opinion that it would (possibly) fall under "copyright not renewed", but you will have to do a little research there.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've looked. I have no idea how you 'publish' a work of art in the US (in the UK, you exhibit it in a gallery (s5(b)(i))). In the UK, a photograph would be covered by our freedom of panorama, but the US version does not include non-architectural items. I'm wondering if it is pd-ineligible, as it is quite hard to separate the creative from the utilitarian element (much harder that in the street sign that was the subject of the FAC), but in any case, it was carved in 1937, it has no copyright, and it would seem unlikely that anyone applied for copyright on it. Who applies for copyright on a stone marker set up to show where someone planted some trees?Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I would hesitate to say that the text is PD-ineligible, if it included only four or five words, or was a name and dates, I'd agree. The text however required at least some minimal creativity.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The stone marker in the photo referenced above says it was erected in 1937. Take that as the publication date. Jonathunder (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
But how is erecting it publication under what Elcobbola said in that FAC?--00:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not. Under US law, it is specifically stated that displaying something does not equal publishing it. As an unpublished work made for hire, or where the author of the work is unknown, the term is 120 years from 1937. However, if the text is what is copyright, and the stone sign is considered a copy (ie the bit of stone isn't a sculpture, it's just a copy of the text), then the text was written by George Dudley Seymour, and he died in 1945, so it would go out of copyright in 2015. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I would concur with Elen's view.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright question

Hello. I need some advice please on copyright tags for 3 photos that I would like to use in my article on Prior's Field School, as I am not practised in this area.

The photos are as follows:

1) an image of the school: after a couple of attempts which were deleted, I have made this free using Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 which I hope is right.

2) an image of a science lesson taken in 1919: I gave this the tag

which I thought would be ok as the image was taken in 1919 and I thought would therefore be in the public domain because of its age, but I see it the image is now a candidate for speedy deletion. Not sure what tag I should now be giving this. 3) an image of an airvent, created by Charles Voysey (English architect) and in the school's Oak Hall: this has been deleted already -I had it down as non free as it is the copyright of Prior's Field School. Should it be free as per the first image of the school under the Creative Commons Attribution 1.0?

Finally, to amend the details of copyright tags for the above images, will I need to re-upload them? Or can I edit the images that are already loaded?

Your help would be very much appreciated Cghamel (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I forgot to put a Headline and link to specific images in my question above - so here is my second attempt. Apologies Cghamel (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I need some advice please on copyright tags for 3 photos that I would like to use in my article on Prior's Field School, as I am not practised in this area.

The photos are as follows:

1) an image of the school: after a couple of attempts which were deleted, I have made this free using Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 which I hope is right. File:Prior's Field School, Godalming.JPG

2) an image of a science lesson taken in 1919: I gave this the tag which I thought would be ok as the image was taken in 1919 and I thought would therefore be in the public domain because of its age, but I see it the image is now a candidate for speedy deletion. Not sure what tag I should now be giving this. File:Science lesson, 1919.jpg

3) an image of an airvent, created by Charles Voysey (English architect) and in the school's Oak Hall: this has been deleted already -I had it down as non free as it is the copyright of Prior's Field School. Should it be free as per the first image of the school under the Creative Commons Attribution 1.0? File:Air Vent with Birds and Trees Motif.jpg

Finally, to amend the details of copyright tags for the above images, will I need to re-upload them? Or can I edit the images that are already loaded?

Your help would be very much appreciated Cghamel (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, you did not take the photographs, so you cannot release them under a license like that. You may own the physical photos, you sort of imply that you do, but that doesn't give you intellectual property rights.

The 1919 science lesson: for it to have that tag, you would have to show that it was published, as it says in the copyright tag. Did it appear in any publications?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded the logo of one of our non-profit's websites to the Wikipedia page, Secular Culture & Ideas. The image was created and funded by our non profit. How do I respond to Wikipedia's request for proof of copyright? Heather Chait (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Heather ChaitHeather Chait (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] File:Land record of 1951.jpg

Dear friend, I created this file (image file) from a scientific paper which is in public domain. I also wish to give proper credit at the appropriate place. But I do not know how to do it? Could you kindly help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibroy00 (talkcontribs) 02:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have put an information template in, to format your text. However we need evidence that the paper is in the public domain. If it is available online, then there should be a notice with the paper to say this, and you can point to the link in the permission attribute. Else if the image is really from 1951, then we really need the original source of the image, where and when it was made, and under what basis it would be public domain, is it because of age? 21:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
And from the Template:PD-India: According to The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (Chapter V) in the case of cinematograph films, sound recordings, photographs, posthumous publications, anonymous and pseudonymous publications, works of government and works of international organisations, enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which they were first published, counted from the beginning of the following calendar year (ie. as of 2010, works published prior to 1 January 1950 are considered public domain)
So from this it looks like a 1951 Indian government document will not be public domain till 1 Jan 2012. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
... in India. It won't be public domain in the United States where our servers are until at least 2046, assuming no law changes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Deceased athletes

I was wondering if there is a fair use rational for an image from a memorial, since no free version is available?

[edit] How to upload power point presentation

Dear Administrator,

I want to upload powerpoint presentation. Kindly guide me for the same.

Regards, Nilesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nileshmer (talkcontribs) 08:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a media copyright quesiton, so the help desk may be a better venue WP:HD. That said, check out http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_types. We do not allow files with ppt extensions. Can you convert it to PDF?-Andrew c [talk] 22:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Roddon formation diagram

The formation of a roddon after Fowler (1932)
Resolved

In his 1932 paper, archaeologist Major Gordon Fowler provides a diagram explaining the formation of a roddon. I realise I cannot duplicate such a diagram without violating copyright. How much of this diagram can I produce myself pictured using modern drawing tools without falling fowl [sic] of the law?

Source: Fowler, Gordon (March 1932). "Old River-beds in the Fenlands". Geographical Journal 79 (3): 210-212. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1785197. Retrieved 19 October 2010. 

--Senra (Talk) 15:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

However to actually answer the question, if you use different colours, thickness of beds and lines, different aspect ratio, and different deformation shape then it would be a redrawn image with new copyright. If you remember the essential idea in your head and then illustrate it yourself you should be safe from fouling. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to YouTube. How do I establish copyright status?

Hi. I need some advice. At Talk:Depression_(mood)#Youtube_external_link we are discussing whether to link to a video hosted on YouTube. If we decide it is an appropriate link, what proof do we need that it is not on YouTube as a copyright violation? I emailed the producer/director, requesting they release it under (CC BY SA) so we could host it, and he replied it is available now as (CC BY ND NC). He's forwarded my request to the copyright holder but, assuming they don't agree to change to (CC BY SA), what should I ask for, to confirm the copyright status? Anthony (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

License has been revised to CC BY SA on the YouTube page.
85.65.243.51 (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
That is wonderful. Hopefully, one of the experts here will advise us if notification on the YouTube page is sufficient verification. An exchange of emails may be necessary. Anthony (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Licensing on the YouTube page is perfectly fine if there's no doubt that the youtube account holder is authorized to do that (just like a notice on a website or flickr account is sufficient). That said, maybe I'm just blind but I'm not seeing the license on the youtube page. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a drop-down panel under the video box. It's in there. Anthony (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, clearly I don't watch enough internet videos. Thanks for the pointer. That certainly seems sufficient as far as the copyright goes. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Anthony (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I emailed Prof. Benny Leshem, the copyright owner, at his Ministry of Health email address and he has confirmed he understands the implications of (CC-BY-SA) and the film is, indeed (CC-BY-SA). Anthony (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] I would like to remove the picture

Hello, thanks for your message however I realized that I can't crop the picture so I would like to remove it. Please help me. Thanks (Joseevolley talk) 00:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)]

Just add the template {{db-author}} if you want to get it deleted by an admin. ww2censor (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
(after EC) Check out {{db-self}}. That template, when added to an image, will alert an admin that you, as the only author/uploader, want to delete it. I'd be glad to delete it now, but "not being able to crop the picture" doesn't seem like a valid reason for deletion. We have a graphics lab that could crop the photo for you WP:GL. In fact, I could make the crop if you want. If not, we can delete the file. But the reason why you had a notice added to your talk page is that you did not provide any authorship or licensing information. If you are the author of this image, you can choose any free license you want here WP:ICTIC. If you are not the author, we would need permission on file from the copyright holder WP:PERMISSION. If you don't have permission for the file, and you didn't create it yourself or otherwise own the copyright, we'll have to delete it. But again, if you own the image and simply want it cropped, we can work that out as well. -Andrew c [talk] 01:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sci logo.jpg

I uploaded an image, File:Sci logo.jpg to the page I created, Secular Culture & Ideas. The logo was commissioned for our purposes, and paid for by our non-profit. We did not apply for copyright and we're not sure of the name of the person who created it. We're 100% sure that it was created solely for us but I'm not clear how to tag it. Thanks for your help. Heather Chait (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Heather ChaitHeather Chait (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] File:Jenkem1.jpg

The image has non-free rationale and is marked as copyrighted. IIRC all works by the U.S. government are in public domain. What is the case with County Sheriff's Departments? Could it be that the document is actually in public domain? --hydrox (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I investigated Commons copyright policy and found that some works by institutions of the State of Florida seem to be an exception, and Collier County is in the state of Florida. However, the legalese seems really complicated. According to [3] the Sheriff's Office has admitted to publishing this as an internal bulletin. Question is, if this is an exemption or covered by the statute? If I can find credible evidence that this is exactly the document by the Sheriff's Office, would PD-FLGov apply? --hydrox (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Old Photograph

Thank you for any guidance you are able to give on the following - my current question follows Wehwalt's advice to me on 18th October.

I wanted to show an old image - from 1919 - of a science lesson for my Prior's Field School article. I gave it a {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} tag but I now realise, with Wehwalt's guidance, that this is wrong as I can't prove that the image was published before 1923.

I do not know who took the image nor when they died. Is there any way that I can still post the image on Wikipedia or not? If not, I have other Prior's Field photos from say 1911 but don't know the names of the girls shown some of whom might be alive - am I able to use these at all? Thank you for any advice. Cghamel (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Adding image to "BBC Northern Dance Orchestra" Page

Help. I've uploaded an image for the "BBC Northern Dance Orchestra" page, but managed to load it into the ether without actually embedding it into the page. I'm unsure as how to correct my mistake. The image is a non-copyright image courtesy of the BBC Stills Archive.Orchestral manoeuvres (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I presume you mean File:BBC NDO.jpg. Currently this image has no source, author, date, or most importantly "purpose for use" which justifies the use of a non-free image. These are necessary to avoid the image being deleted. According to the BBC Northern Dance Orchestra article this image must have been taken between 1951 and 1985 so a freely licenced image may well exist. To embed the image into an article you just need to add this code: [[File:BBC NDO.jpg|thumb|a caption for the image]]. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I assume you mean File:BBC NDO.jpg? To add the uploaded image to the article you would have to add an image code to the BBC Northern Dance Orchestra page by editing that article. The page an image is uploaded to (called a file page) is separate to any article you may want to use it in and must be manually inserted. In this case between double square brackets, [[ ]], you would enter something like "Image:BBC NDO.jpg|thumb|250px". You can vary the number of pixels as you wish.
However there is a problem with the image file page at present, it has no licensing information entered into the box which is required to asses whether the image can be used. Not only that but the template used is for non-free images when you say that the image is not copyright (I.e public domain) and so wouldn't need such a license. If you can provide the relevant information (especially the source the image is from, such as a web-page URL) and add it to the File:BBC NDO.jpg page then a correct licensing template can be used. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Despite what ChiZeroOne says, you should not force the image size per WP:IMGSIZE] by adding a px size. ww2censor (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Good point, bad habit. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] How to stop bot resizing of a non-free work?

Please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/January#A free image with non-free components for a bit of background.

My current question is a little different, however. The image in question is File:Rochester Midtown Plaza - Interior.jpg. I uploaded it at full size (2275x1687, I believe) because the portion of the image that is non-free (the clock sculpture) is still only a small portion of the image at that size.

The problem is that bots can't tell the difference between a non-free image and an image that contains non-free elements. So every few months, I get a bot coming by to resize the image to an acceptable non-free size, as if the entire image were non-free. And of course, if I fail to monitor this, then another bot comes by and deletes the old versions so that I can't even revert it.

How can I prevent this pointlessness?

-- Powers T 15:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  • The clock sculpture occupies about 21% of the total image. Yes, I checked. There's no set % at which de minimis is set, but 21% is not a large part of the image. The sculpture is not the focus of the image, it is not centered in the image, and it's obvious the intent of the image isn't to display the sculpture, but to display the interior of the mall. I don't even see this as a borderline case. It's obvious to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Two other examples to note here where a copyrighted artwork is de minimis to the image; File:Joslyn Atrium South.jpg and File:Joslyn Atrium North.jpg. The glass work is by Dale Chihuly and is copyrighted. You could crop the image to focus on the artwork, but uncropped the works are de minimis to the image. That's why they are on Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The starting point in this case is the statement of Wikimedia's general council, User:MikeGodwin who has said about such situations that: In general, a photograph that happens to include all or part of a copyrighted image or a trademark does not raise significant intellectual property issues. Occasionally, copyright or trademark holders attempt to assert claims regarding such photographs -- these are best responded to on a case-by-case basis. It is, in my view, a bad idea to be pro-actively policing photographs that happen to include a copyrighted work or a trademark, absent some evidence of an actual claim or dispute. MikeGodwin 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC) [1] . So substantively I would agree that the correct solution is to stop tagging the image an non-free. Legally though the issue is actually much more complex than Mike or Hammersoft suggest. In the UK and Canada the defence ( a murky one, because a mike suggests most people are sane and so no-one ever sues much for it) would be the defence of "incidental inclusion" (see football association v Pannini Uk for a typical English case). Generally in the US i would suggest that the usage fell under "fair-use" as opposed to deminimis (which is really an exceptional defence, see e.g Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television). Clearly though, this is an issue which has little real world relevance. For the purposes of wikipedia and given Mike's response, there is nothing wrong with giving this image a free use tag as far as I can tell Ajbpearce (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Image Tag Question

Regarding image, Frank Romano - NYC 2009.JPG...can you help me determine what kinda of tag I need for this? It is a personal photo, my own work. Not sure if that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgozdzielski (talkcontribs) 04:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I will reply on your talkpage Ajbpearce (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Your message RE: File:SJP Wealth Managemen logo.jpg

Hi I received your message RE the lack of licence tag for File:SJP Wealth Managemen logo.jpg I selected non-free logo from the list.What further tags do you need to verify the image. I assumed the non free logo tag was a valid entry? Thanks Selphy10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selphy10 (talkcontribs) 15:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been fixed already. ww2censor (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Help requested

I am involved in a debate regarding several images being used as electoral symbols for Indian political parties. At least two contributors to this discussion are taking a stance that there is a grey area in copyright law, wherein (for example) an artist creating a drawing of a mango can't claim copyright because a mango is an everyday object, therefore their artwork is not copyrightable. I've noted that this would make all still life paintings ineligible for copyright. I've cited the Copyright Office of the Government of India, and the fact that India observes the Berne Convention. This has all fallen on deaf ears. I am making zero headway here in educating the contributors to this discussion about copyright. Some assistance please? Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Party_symbols_and_copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to make it clear here that I respect copyright laws and i have no problems deleting all Indian party symbols from wikipedia if they are in violation. I have no way to demonstrate that election symbols are not the copyrighted properties of the Indian parties. But, by the very nature of it, i have a hard time accepting that they are. I would be glad to be convinced. Thanks. --CarTick (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
useful link for consideration THE ELECTION SYMBOLS (RESERVATION AND ALLOTMENT) ORDER, 1968. --CarTick (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
First, before we start getting into copyright issues - everything about the uploaded images suggests that they are not actually even the official logos of the relevant parties but photoshop interpretations (presumably produced by the uploader - of those symbols. I can't find these images on the official websites of these parties or on the indian government websites. Infact in atleast one of the listed cases (AIADMK there appears to be a contrasting official logo ( with a non-free use rationale) in use elsewhere on wikipedia. (Contrast File:AIADMK_logo_2006_04_25.PNG with File:AIADMK_Two_Leaves.png )) That being the case, I don't understand what these images are doing on wikipedia in the first case. It seems to me that we should not be allowing extremely generous artistic reinterpretations to be represented as the "official" logo's of the relevant parties. I cannot imagine that we would replace File:Republicanlogo.svg with a version that someone had "improved" with extra colours and a bevel emboss for example. I would recommend we remove these images on this basis alone


In regards to the copyright question, as far as i can tell the arguments? that these images somehow are not derivative works is just nonsense. If its really necessary I can go into detail, but in summary - these logo's fulfill the criterion for copyright (originality is a low hurdle and clearly met) These images are based on some copyrighted logo and meant to represent the same thing, ergo they are derivative works. Absent some insane quirk of indian law (which there has been no suggestion of anywhere as far as i can see) then any appropriate logo for inclusion will be NFCC and need to include a fair-use rational under WP:LogoAjbpearce (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
you are sure these are logos created by the parties after reading THE ELECTION SYMBOLS (RESERVATION AND ALLOTMENT) ORDER, 1968 --CarTick (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
That document is irrelevant. The images concerned are clearly based on or derived from images produced by someone else (whether the indian government or the political parties themselves its not that clear to me but also not relevant). There is no indication that copyright does not vest in those original images. These interpretations of the symbols are derivative works of other copyrighted interpretations of the symbols ergo - they are non free content. Ajbpearce (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
That is interesting. page 31 of the document says the symbols are not the property of the political parties. Does that mean it is the ECI which holds the copyright to it? ECI just assigns symbols to parties and does not provide any particular images of these symbols. The political parties use various self-made depictions of it. It would be hard to imagine that ECI owns copyright to an image it never produced. one could argue that the idea that an object is the election symbol of Indian comes from ECI and therefore, even if it doesnt create the image, it still holds copyright to it. --CarTick (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The word "copyright" - the crucial issue for us, is never mentioned in that document, and I can't find any information about the copyright status of the original symbols online. That being said: this document, http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/ElectoralLaws/HandBooks/HANDBOOK%20OF%20SYMBOLS.pdf is an official document of the Indian Electoral Commission, with a clear copyright notice attached. As far as I can tell the indian electoral commission has full power over the allocation and use of the symbols and though copyright is never mentioned anywhere on its website or in that book, would appear to technically have the copyright over the basic symbols with a start date of whenever these authoritative versions were originally produced. Technically some of the symbols submitted by the parties might be in the public domain ( the hammer and sickle for example is now almost certainly in the public domain) but I can see no reason that the other images, the definitive versions of which are simple "clipart style" logo's used by the electoral commission on ballot papers, are not simple works / drawings copyright to the electoral commission, of which works derived from them would constitute derivative works. Ajbpearce (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
good. dont know how i missed the symbols at the end of that file. it confirms that ECI holds the copyright. i will consider this issue resolved as far as i am concerned. --CarTick (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Tag added to image

Hi the image File:OCSFC logo framed.JPG was noted for deletion because there was no copyright tag was on it. A tag has been added, but the notice of speedy deletion is still there. I have two questions. One, does the review and removal of the deletion note take time? Or, is the tag used not satisfactory?

Please let me know.

Thank you.

Wesomniman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesomniman (talkcontribs) 21:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] File:Peter Ebdon.jpg

The copyright holder of this image has allowed me to upload this image to Wikipedia. My question: Which copyright license tag should i use? Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That depends entirely on the actual permission under which the copyright holder released the image. The best thing to do is to get the copyright holder to give their WP:CONSENT which will determine the copyright tag to be applied, however if the permission is for Wikipedia use only, we do not accept images with that restriction because it it not freely licenced enough for us. ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hello, a few days ago I visited the Tanger Family Bicentennial Garden and established its wikipedia article. While I was there, I picked up one of those little pamphlets that has a map of the place with important locations highlighted. I was wondering, since it doesn't seem to be copyrighted, if I could just scan it onto my desktop than upload it to commons without permission?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the quick reply.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] DOT placards

[edit] change of image jpg

Hi My name is Therese, working with singer Meja I see that there has been some problems with an uploaded jpg. How do I change that to one of the photos Meja owns the right to? hope to hear from you

best regards Therese —Preceding unsigned comment added by MejaOfficial (talkcontribs) 15:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Burj Al Arab

Can the image de:File:Burjalarab1.jpg be used in the Article Burj Al Arab? --84.61.153.119 (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph copyright

Hello, This photograph File:J Crosthwaite Duffel coat with BRM Graham Hill.jpg was taken in 1965 on John Crosthwaite's behalf ie commissioned by him but I'm not sure who the photographer is. There is nothing on the original. Can he claim authorship in the UK and if so what tag can I use? Thanks Ray

Whether John Crosthwaite can claim copyright would seem irrelevant as he is sadly deceased. For the purposes of wikipedia what is important is whether we can use it on wikipedia and if so under what capacity. Legally, Authorship is not the same as ownership of the copyright on a particular image, almost certainly the authorship right resides with the original unknown photographer. In regards to the copyright status, in order to use this image on wikipedia as free content some proof / an assertion of authorship / copyright status would be needed. Absent that proof we must err on the side of caution and treat the image as non-free content. This means to use the image on wikipedia you will need to fulfil the criteria of WP:NFCC and (crucially) complete a detailed fair use rationale for each usage of the image in an article. Ajbpearce (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Possible copyright problem: Peter Sutcliffe

A user has uploaded File:SutcliffeL010605 228x307.jpg claiming it to be their own work. However the image appeared in the Daily Mail in 2007 [4]. There does not seem to be a speedy deletion template that fits the bill. If you could help me out that would be great. Thank you. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] (9) Image Deletion

Ambox warning.svg

I have submitted a Wikipedia:Declaration of consent/ image upload to [email protected]; [email protected] I havent heard anything back yet? This is in regards to the 9 total images I have uploaded. They have not been undelted. Permission was given for these images.

Evaporation Expert (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I can't speak for other OTRS volunteers, but I always check both here and on commons when I'm working permissions. There is a backlog of about a month though, so the best advice is to simply be patient and they will be restored when someone gets to them. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages