Unblock YouTube Videos - Free YouTube Web Proxy Site, Free YouTube Proxy | Tubeunblock
The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20111129232916/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.


[edit] Canadian signs

I brought this up at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Canadian_signs because I wanted to know if some images are eligible for Commons or not, but it also affects English Wikipedia since they currently are hosted here, so it was suggested that I take it up here too.

The article List of heritage buildings in Vancouver has a lot of photos of plaques indicating that the houses in question are heritage buildings. According to Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Canada, photos of "houses" are OK while photos of "signs" are not. Are these plaques "houses" or "signs"? The one who answered me at Commons wasn't certain, but mentioned Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lendal Tower, York (21st October 2010) 001.jpg.

Should these plaque photos have their GNU, Creative Commons and public domain licences changed into something non-free, or should they be considered as being free and be moved to Commons? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a really interesting question. :) The part I'd be most concerned about is the text - it seems long enough to be copyrightable, and that was the primary issue with the deletion discussion mentioned above. Without knowing the date at which this text was published, I'd default to saying that it is under copyright, and therefore not compatible with Commons, but if that could be clarified things would be better. Sorry that I can't be of more assistance on this - perhaps someone else will have a better idea? - Bilby (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
One of the images has now been moved to Commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:St. Andrew's-Wesley Church plaque.JPG. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] File:Friends titles.jpg and File:FriendsLogo.jpg

What about the copyright status title logo of Friends within both of them? --George Ho (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This should count as a public domain trademark too, even with the coloured dots. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) The first is copyrighted if only due to the background image. The second would be controversial on this page: IMHO it is copyrighted because the letters are drawn rather than taken from a typeface, but some people would contend that no lettering passes the threshold of original. —teb728 t c 05:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that File:FriendsLogo.jpg cannot be considered anything but copyright not being composed of plain text. ww2censor (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag and Commons:Template:PD-signature. Handwritten letters are no more subject to copyright than printed ones — the typical signature involves more artistic ability than this image, and since it's not eligible, this isn't either; single-color variations are nowhere near original enough. Finally, the sole contents of the second image are F·R·I·E·N·D·S — unless you believe that this comment is a copyvio of that logo, you cannot believe that the logo itself is subject to copyright. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, the copyright status of the second logo is controversial (2 yeses and 2 nos). The signature analogy, however, is a weak argument: The Commons references say correctly that a typical signature lacks originality. When I sign my name, for example, the only decision I make is whether to spell out my name or use my initials; any other variation from signature to signature is unintentional. Similarly typical calligraphy or draftsman’s lettering is unoriginal: In those cases the drawer seeks to use an ideal hand, and any variation is unintentional and undesirable. In the case of this logo, however, the artist has obviously chosen to avoid ideal letter shapes, which necessitates making original choices in the drawing. —teb728 t c 11:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] David Cone's Perfect Game

The image I uploaded in the article I feel fits the criteria for a nonfree image on Wikipedia: It is only used in 1 article It has been published on other websites and blogs It clearly illustrates a moment refered to in the article

--Coingeek (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don’t see how you could create a valid non-free use rationale for File:Coneperfect.jpeg on David Cone's perfect game: It illustrates the article, but it doesn’t identify the subject or otherwise significantly increase reader understanding of the article. And the AP photo itself (rather than the game generally) is not the subject of sourced commentary (see WP:CSD#F7). —teb728 t c 05:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me identify a little better the policy and guideline I allude to: It is not enough that a photo illustrates a moment referred to in an article. “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.”WP:NFCC#8 “A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article.”WP:NFC#UUI #7 The photo shows Cone on his knees with Girardi about to embrace him. The article text describes a later scene and says nothing about this photo itself. The SI source doesn't even identify the AP photographer; so the photo itself can hardly be that notable. —teb728 t c 08:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] File:TheNighttimePriceisRight.jpg

In spite of the copyrighted screenshot, is the logo itself eligible for copyright protection? --George Ho (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably, I don't think it's simple enough to qualify as {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-text}}. – ukexpat (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
If I just paid some dude about a zillion dollars to design a logo, you better believe It would be copyrighted.  :-) See WP:LOGOS I B D Shank (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] About authorship of a photo (File:Protaetia aeruginosa 2.jpg)

This photo is copied from a site macroclub.ru URL: http://macroclub.ru/glr/displayimage.php?pos=-687. The author of this photo am I. The participant Reanimator86 breaks the property right to this image. --Evkomarov (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The file is kept at Commons rather than here, but I'll nominate it to be deleted. I have concerns about a number of images uploaded by that contributor. - Bilby (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] When to use {{subst:nsd}}?

I copied lots of images from Balanced-arm lamp to Commons. A few of them only list a source in the form of a {{PD-self}} template. Is this enough to assume that the images were made by the uploader? Note that the same uploader also uploaded a lot of similar images to the article where he wrote an explicit comment that he made the similar images.

The problematic images are the following:

Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Also look at the comments provided at upload time, these give the information that would normally be in an information template, so you can be pretty sure that this user is the creator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
It's enough to assume that the uploader claims to be the source and enough to avoid the NSD tag. No statement made by an uploader is ironclad, but that's why we have WP:AGF. If you believe that the uploader's claim is false, you'd do best to go with the WP:PUF process. Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] File:OpenAstroMenace menu.jpg license

I created this ingame screenshot to give an idea how the game looks like. As I was not sure under what kind of license it is published, I assumed it's non-free although the game code is open source and it's downloadable for free. Does that somehow help to avoid deletion? --EoD (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It needs a non-free use rational to show what article it is used on and why the WP:NFCC policy permits its use on that article. You may find {{Video game rationale}} helpful in creating a rationale. (Click on the link for the template parameters.) —teb728 t c 06:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I created a rationale. I guess it's licensed under some CC as the source code and the media is downloadable from sourceforge but I have no idea about such stuff. That's why I asked here. --EoD (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The code and artwork are both GPL licensed, according to License.txt in the download. I've retagged it as a {{Free screenshot}}. --dave pape (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] File:Aethelberhtobv.jpg and File:Aethelberhtrev.jpg

I'd like a clarification on why {{PD-art}} or {{PD-old}} doesn't apply here.

I've had someone comment on my talk page claim that because a coin is a 3D object, the terms of PD-art do not apply, even though the coins are at older than 900 years!!

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The point of view is that although the the coin itself is PD, the photographer of a 3D object makes creative choices which gives him/her a separate copyright on the photograph. In these photos for example the photographer chose to light the coin from a particular angle on the upper right. With a fully 3D sculpture he/she would also make shoices of where to photograph from. In a faith rendering of a 2D artwork there are no such creative choices; so the photographer does not get a separate copyright. I hope this helps. —teb728 t c 05:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] File:SOAPnet logo.svg

Is this image of a logo eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

this is PD-simple, ineligible for copyright since it is only a simple combination of words. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] how to copyright an image

how to copyright an image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesg4shilpa1 (talkcontribs) 09:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

When someone creates an image, they automatically have a copyright on it which prevents Wikipedia or anyone else from using the image without the creators permission. The problem with the image you uploaded is you didn't say:
  • Where did you get them from?
  • Who created them?
  • What permission does the creator give for their use?
teb728 t c 11:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Details of PD-Australia

Does {{PD-Australia}} apply to http://catalogue.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/item/?id=180422? I recently deleted this image, which had been uploaded as File:Forthetermofhisnaturallife.jpg and marked with a Wikipedia-only permission, but the uploader has left the following note on my talk page:

Hello - I have permission to upload this poster from Ian Morrison the Senior Librarian of the Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office for wikipedia provided the office is acknowledged. The image is sourced from their website at http://catalogue.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/item/?id=180422 I clicked on the wrong licensing button I should have clicked "any kind of poster". It's over a 100 years old, it's fair use - I request that I be able to use it. regards,

I don't see how it would be fair use (and none was claimed), but I wonder whether it might be PD. As far as I can see it, this is a work for hire, and the template doesn't address works for hire.

If it's concluded that this image is clearly PD, please don't wait for me to respond: undelete it (or file a note at WP:AN for undeletion, if you're not an admin) and tag it with PD-Australia. Here in the USA, tomorrow is a major national holiday, so I'll not likely be online much for the next few days. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright in Australia would have expired 50 years after creation, as this is a company (academy of music) item. Which is 1959. PD-Australia applies and this is also PD in USA. But can you upload a bigger image as the one uploaded is really too small to read? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Owner / Not the Author


I work for a company that owns copyrights to several images and wants them added to wikipedia. I did not make those images so I am not sure how I can add them (I tried adding them in the past but they were all deleted).

How and to whom do I have to prove that I a represent a company owning copyrights?

Thank you!

Bizutage (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer and the question! Please take a look at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. – ukexpat (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] hi

I want to change this file's سيف الإسلام القذافي نوفمبر2011.JPG license to newspaper template.


--Neogeolegend (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean File:سيف الإسلام القذافي نوفمبر2011.JPG? – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Neogeolegend has abandoned that image and has re uploaded another attempt user non free rationale - see here. - on first glance it seems quite correct? It seems a bit of a weak rationale for a living person and I suggested he might focus the rationale specifically in relation to the arrest and how he looked at that time...it seems undue to me to represent a living person in his infobox while under arrest when he has spent almost all of his life not under arrest. - Off2riorob (talk)

[edit] File:Summerhouse 17 with 2 borders redd.jpg

I am adding this note from user re File:Summerhouse 17 with 2 borders redd.jpg

This ismy first go at loading up an image. I have looked through the list of licence options but am not sure which one to go for. I have received permission by email from Hill Close Gardens Trust to use this image freely. What licence does that come under? Tony: What a brilliant idea. By all means use that picture. Thanks Chris Begg

Pp Pattie Hall on hols Centre Manager

Hill Close Gardens Bread and Meat Close Warwick CV34 6HF

01926 493 339



Keith D (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for how to request and submit permission. —teb728 t c 03:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] File:Programa de la Sinfonica Nacional 1966.jpg and File:Afiche Japón.JPG

Is the 1966 pamphlet still copyrighted under copyright law of Argentina? Is the other photo copyrighted under copyright law of Japan? --George Ho (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging



Amitabh Bachchan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I need some help because I'm not sure I'm doing this right. The two images above have problems, and I'm not sure if I tagged them properly initially or they're properly tagged now. On one of them, another (probably more experienced in this area) user retagged it for speedy deletion. He reverted a change to the other one made by an IP but left my original tag in place.

I confess I get very lost when I try to sort out the proper procedures for deleting or requesting deletion of non-free images on Wikipedia. I've read the policies and some of the relevant review pages, and, to date, I remain mostly unenlightened.

I would appreciate any help, both generally but particularly with respect to these two files.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The first photo already had a non-free use rationale when you first tagged it; so I’m not sure what you find wrong with it. The thing wrong with the second is that its use does not significantly increase reader understanding; so I tagged it {{subst:dfu|The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8}} (The uploader is probably correct that there is no free replacement of him winning the Lifetime Achievement Award.) —teb728 t c 20:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been watching your efforts in the background with the two files, thanks very much. Unfortunately, although my memory is hazy on the point, I believe that both files had templates in it that questioned the fair use rationale. I noted they weren't the same, but even the less warning-like template (the one in the first file) says: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." I suppose that's intended to be generic and informational, as opposed to a comment on the lack of a fair use rationale, but it wasn't clear to me (still isn't). As I also recall, both had "Purpose of use" completed, so I'm not sure what the second one was lacking that the first one had. Makes me dizzy just to talk about it. This is probably all easy and second nature to you, but it isn't to me. Bottom line is I really can't figure out how to tag these files correctly. Maybe what I'll do in the future is not try to tag them and just come straight here for help.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dannel Malloy.jpg

This is a derivative work based on the official portrait of Connecticut governor Dan Malloy. The licensing section claims the image is PD as a product of the US Government. Problem is, the image was most likely not created by the US Government but rather by the State of Connecticut, and the State of Connecticut is clearly claiming copyright, as evidenced by the note at the bottom of the page here. I found no comparable portrait of Gov. Malloy on Wikimedia Commons.

What's the right course of action? Is there some Connecticut law that places such official pictures in the public domain? Do we ask them to place it under a free license? Am I overworrying this, since the picture was quite clearly created for the purpose that we are using it for?

--Malatinszky (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Tag it with {{db-filecopyvio|url=http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/cwp/view.asp?a=11&Q=470856}} —teb728 t c 19:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
You didn't tag it; so I did. —teb728 t c 11:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] prphotos

Hello, I brought a photo from http://www.prphotos.com and now I have the License too. I would like to know, What information do I put for a photo that I had brought? Can you give me some examples what to put in the information below and for the Licensing: option?

Source No source specified. Please edit this file description and provide a source.

13:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(Reusing this file)

See below.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LovingCaringReading (talkcontribs) 08:21, 25 November 2011

What licence specifically did you purchase. Buying a physical copy of a photo from photo agencies does not usually confer any copyright licencing rights to the purchaser; you just own a copy of the image. The prphotos website licencing http://www.prphotos.com/store/category.cgi?category=license appear to be very restrictive, so unless you can show that the image you bought has specifically been released under a free licence we cannot use it. ww2censor (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Old US Movie Posters

At lunch today I saw a (reproduction, I assume) poster for Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! which did not have a copyright notice. A look at an example here suggests the same. According to WP:PD, this would make it PD. My question is: Would a copyright notice be put on the back of the poster? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Local Senators and Politicians

I'm from Puerto Rico and I'd like to know if official pictures of local Senators, Representatives, Mayors, and/or Cabinet members are eligible for use here. I couldn't find anything about local government pictures, although I know federal ones apply. Thief12 (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Besides US federal works, only official images from California and Florida are in the public domain. Unfortunately this free licencing does not apply to Puerto Rican images. ww2censor (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
That's too bad. Thanks anyway! Thief12 (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Some exceptions are {{PD-PRGov-OfficialPortraits}} and {{PD-PRGov-PRSHP}} which have been verified by OTRS. Seems to only apply to two specific cases though. Maybe the picture you want to contribute is one of them? Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice! this might apply to a couple of pics I wanted to upload. Thanx!! Thief12 (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want other pictures, you can always request that they be released - a similar request for Iowa resulted in a positive response (documented at commons:Template:Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that as well! I'll see which ones I can upload with that permission, and then check that release request. Thief12 (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Cynthia Lennon nonfree images

The BLP article on Cynthia Lennon, the first wife of John Lennon, includes several nonfree images taken from a recently published book, as well as one recent free image of the subject. The images carry rather generic rationales, and appear to be used as general illustrations (one in the infobox). Some of the images are used in multiple articles, so I don't want to go directly to FFD since different issues would be involved. I'm particularly bothered by the suggestion in one of the rationales [1] that an image satisfies NFC requirements for a BLP because it (also) includes an image of someone other than the article subject who is no longer living. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some of the rationales are dubious. – ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Tamagotchi pictures

Well, I'm planning to upload an SVG file of a Tamagotchi character named Mametchi, and I really have no clue which license it goes under. I got the SVG from a PDF from the Tamagotchi USA Bandai website using Inkscape, if that helps somehow.

Also, Tama-Star Girl uploaded a picture of th English-language logo for Tamagotchi! but got deleted by a bot named Commons Delinker because of no licence.


User:Umbreon126--「talk」 ~from 21:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What license (i.e. permission) does the Tamagotchi USA Bandai website grant for the image? By creating the image Bandai gets a copyright on it; so nobody can use it without their permission. Do they grant permission for anybody to use the image for anything? I suspect not, and if not then you can't upload it to Wikipedia. Sorry. —teb728 t c 01:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
As for the logo, File:Tamagotchi! anime logo english.png was uploaded to Commons. Wikipedia allows a few exceptions to the rule that all images must have a free license. Commons allows no such exceptions. —teb728 t c 01:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Well it's from a pdf on their website of a chart (link not there anymore, though since the update)
Would this help? Wayback MAchine Tamagotchi
and also wouldn't this be like uploading pictures of Pokemon? *is very confused* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umbreon126 (talkcontribs) 01:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
At the bottom of your linked page is a link to the Bandai America Terms and Conditions. According to that page: “BAI owns or has the right to use all of the data, information, text, images, sounds, icons, and other content contained on this Web site (including software and transmissions to this Web site), and the copyrights and other intellectual property rights therein, unless otherwise noted. You may review, download, and/or print one copy of the content of this Web site, but you may not make more than one copy of such content, modify it in any way, distribute or transmit it to any other person or company, frame or otherwise display any of the content of this Web site on your own or any other Web site, or make any other use of it. Such copying, modification, distribution or transmission, display, or use would breach this agreement and infringe BAI's copyrights, copyrights licensed to BAI, and/or other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to BAI.” So they positively forbid you to transmit their content to Wikipedia. And they deny the free license that Wikipedia requires. —teb728 t c 00:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing it up
User:Umbreon126--「talk」 ~from 19:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Internet images copyright

Is it possible to use images online that are copyrighted for business purposes, without getting a lawsuit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Not unless they are duly licensed by the copyright holder. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)--Orange Mike | Talk 22:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Memogate Scandal - picture of the contents of the memo draft

The text contents of the memo discussed on the Memogate Scandal page are a major part of the article makeup. The text of the memo is in the presence of the US military and is readily available on public domain after the contents were disclosed to the general public. The only copy of the actual document draft lies with Foreign Policy magazine here. Can the image in the PDF file be used as a valid image on the Wikipedia article for the Memogate Scandal. Would this be a copyright violation? -- Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 01:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I can think of no reason to think the image is either in the public domain or free licensed. Unless it is free, any use would have to comply with Wikipedia’s non-free content policy. In particular the use would have to significantly increase reader understanding. Just showing the memo discussed in the article is not necessary for understanding. —teb728 t c 06:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood the notions of "public domain". What I meant was that the document was "publicly available on the Internet". However, could the contents of the memo be published wholly as text under the non-free content policy? Being in the hands of the US government, doesn't it also hold the opportunity to be tagged as the work of the US Government (or am I also wrong in suggesting that) and be used under those terms? Thanks for bearing with my ignorance in such matters -- Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 09:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
If the contents or some portion thereof would significantly increase reader understanding (see WP:NFCC#8), and a free paraphrase would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose (see WP:NFCC#1), it could be used. But the entire contents could not be used if a portion would suffice (see WP:NFCC#3). A work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. national government as part of that person's official duties is in the public domain, but this memo was (allegedly) produced by an official of the Pakistan government. (Being in possession of the U.S. government is irrelevant.) —teb728 t c 19:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] More tagging questions

File:Amitabh bachchan at afa.jpg

File:Amitabh Bachchan Graffiti.jpg

The first file above is almost the same as another file that User:TEB728 helped tag properly. That file was deleted, and the same editor has uploaded a similar one with the same issues. Unfortunately, as recent as it was, I've already forgotten how it should be tagged, and, of course, it's gone, so I can't see the tags that were there.

The second file is better. As far as I can tell, it has an appropriate Flickr license at Flickr. The only problem I see is it's a 2.0 license, whereas the uploader is saying here it's a 3.0 license. Not sure how to fix the file so it's at least accurate. Also, the file page looks unorthodox to me, but I don't know if that matters.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My tag is still in my previous reply above at #Tagging. In the graffiti file I changed 3.0 -> 2.0 three places. —teb728 t c 00:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] {{PD-textlogo}} and the threshold of originality

Where does it begin? That's what I'm wondering. Recently came across File:Seoul emblem.svg, which is tagged as being PD because of a lack of orgiinality. But is that logo in the centre really not original enough? I would have thought there was enough to claim copyright there. And then today, a problem in the opposite direction, File:ShiodomeCenterLogo.gif -- is the stylised S original enough to claim copyright? In this case, I wouldn't think so.

Basically, are these two images both tagged wrongly? Should the first not be FU and the second PD? I'm nowhere near well versed enough to know for sure, and an extra pair of eyes would be grand. Thanks, Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 18:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I would believe both to be non-free. The threshold of originality, unfortunately, is something that can only be affirmed by a court of law, but we can use the basic metrics, that images composed of typeface fonts and simple shapes will fail the threshold and thus be PD. If it is not obvious, we should treat the images as non-free until proven otherwise. I would argue the paint-stroke part of the Seoul logo puts it far outside "simple shape", while the S-like shape in front of the Shiodome Center is not just a simple shape and therefore non-free as well. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The first one I would delete from Commons, the second is iffy. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright status of image released by the celebrity for Wikipedia purposes

This is regarding the following image: File:Rosela_roma_1.jpg. Ms Gjylbegu's manager has privately contacted and released that image for the purpose of using it in her Wikipedia article specifically. I am not sure I completed the copyright-information correctly in this case, but we are risking of having it erased.

Can someone please advise how to prevent this? Thank you. --Namik (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Such images must be freely licenced by the copyright holder and permission for use on Wikipedia only is not acceptable to us. Have the copyright holder send our OTRS team their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT as only they can verify under what type of licence they are releasing the image. ww2censor (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] How do I allow Wikipedia to use my song tranaslation?

I love the song "Un Canadien Errant", for which there is a Wikipedia page. In fact, I contributed the existing "literal translation" of this song which is currently displayed on this page.

Because the English translation shown in the article about this song is weak and problematic (as noted in the commentary), I made a new translation. I have not specifically copyrighted it. I would like to post in on Wikipedia for use / enjoyment of everyone. I posted it last night (Nov. 27) but it was deleted by this morning.

How can I contribute this translation to "the world", so to speak, via Wikipedia?

Thanks --

Brian Puckett <phone removed for privacy> <email removed for privacy> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfromtexas (talkcontribs) 18:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  • A translation of a part of the song (discussed critically) would be okay, but a translation of the entirety of the lyrics would be a derivative work which could not be accepted under our fair use criteria, as they require critical commentary and minimal use. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The original "Un Canadien errant" (of which the new translation is derivative) was published in 1844 and so is PD. —teb728 t c 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • My bad. In that case, as long as the translation is demonstrably not a copyvio (i.e. someone else's translation that is still under copyright copied to Wikipedia) it should be fine. However, if a translation from the 1800s exists that was done by a professional translator, using it would be preferable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Deceased person

The article about Norwegian Erik Gjems-Onstad, a recently deceased person, lacks any free images. The person in question was among other things an MP from 1973 to 1977, and there is a picture of him from 1973 (looks like an at least semi-official picture) at the following news website: [2]. The image is copyrighted "Erik Thorberg (NTB/Scanpix)". I was wondering whether I can use the picture in the article on Wikipedia (in the infobox) anyway, under fair use policy. —Filippusson (t.) 22:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Film Poster

I was wondering a couple things about an Australian film poster for an American movie (this one; it says "Country of Origin: Australia").

  1. Would this have been originally published in the US or in Australia?
  2. Would a collective copyright (i.e. the one owned by the company) fall under part A of {{PD-Australia}} or Part C?
  3. If it falls under Part C, when would the copyright expire?
Any help greatly appreciated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright status of Scepter Records-related stuff (1960 - 1962)

Hi, seeing as Scepter Records was sold in 1976, would it be safe to assume that the copyrights for works published by them from 1960 to 1962 were never renewed? If so:

  1. Are the album covers for works published in that period PD?
  2. Are the songs released by artists on the label PD?
  3. Are other related paraphernalia PD?

Any replies would be welcome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] please advise re use of 2 images

I write re 2 images of the poet Abraham Sutzkever which are not in your wiki article itself but in external link Bibliotheca Liddica Please advise if I may use them on a not for profit website of Yiddish poetry www.yiddishpoetry.org Thamk you Andrew Firestone — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We can’t give legal advice, but I can tell you that if you wanted to use them on Wikipedia, here’s what I would say:
“Most images on the web are unusable because they are neither in the public domain nor licensed with permission that allows their use. We can’t use web content without knowing its copyright status. Although the Bibliotheca Iiddica page doesn’t indicate the copyright status of the photos, maybe you can ask the author of the page where he got it from. The page links to this Yiddish Language and Culture page, which contains one of the photos; so the author of that page is another possible source of info.” —teb728 t c 10:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] freemasonry in Lebanon

I was reading the article in Wikipedia about freemasonry in Lebanon....Well this article is not accurate concerning regularity in irregularity in masonery... By mentionning only one side of the story, wikipedia is taking part in a 200 year worlwide old conflict between Regulars and Irregulars. In Lebanon, "The Grand Lodge of Cedars", which I represent is well introduced localy and universaly, taking part actively in different events like : Union maconnique mediterraneenne "UMM" and "CLIPSAS" and already organized several activities in Lebanon since year 2000. GLOC is also duely recognised as Regular by several Grd Lodges in different countries especially by the "Grand Orient of France" who delivered a Chart clearly mentionning this recognition for the GLOC "Blue Logdes" as well as its "Supreme Council".

"The GODF practices Continental style Freemasonry (what GODF calls "Traditional Liberal Masonry"), the defining features of which are complete freedom of religious conscience and heavy involvement in politics. This is in antithesis to the "Anglo" tradition of Freemasonry." (Wikipedia)

I would be very grateful if you reconsider your page about freemasonery in Lebanon...and It will be a pleasure for me to send you as many documents you need confirming the accurity of this demand....

Sicerely yours

Raymond Tabet — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's obviously not a media copyright question; so nobody on this forum knows the first thing about the subject. You would get better results (or at least a knowledgible response) if you discussed your concerns on the article discussion page: Talk:Freemasonry in Lebanon. —teb728 t c 10:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] File:Beckett and Matzerath.JPG

I am curious to know why you removed the file Beckett and Matzerath.JPG from my article on J. S. Beckett recently, even though I had emailed you a forwarded message containing proof of the ownership of the photo and permission granted to me for the use of it for the article. Charlesgannon (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that the permission has not yet been reviewed. When it has, and if it is appropriate, the image will be undeleted. I will say, however, that permission only for use in the article will not be sufficient. To be acceptable to Wikipedia, permission must be granted for all purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools