User talk:Jappalang/Image stuff 1

This page 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.

Thank you very much for finding and posting the coloured Bligh image. I wonder if you have time to do an image review at the FAC (or even a prose review?). Elcobbola found few image problems at peer review, but I would very much welcome your input. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang, this article is currently in FAC and someone just posted that the images needed a lot of work. I didn't know who else to turn to, so here I am. Here is what was posted:

• • File:Youngtchaik.jpg—the used PD template requires the image to be public domain in its country of origin, but it is not demonstrably so listed.
  • File:Rubinstein repin.jpg—missing most information such as author dates, source, date of publication (if the license is to be valid), et al.
  • Was File:Feodor Chaliapin as Ivan Susanin.jpg ever published? That would be the better license to use, and due to the Russian text I can't be sure this is valid (no mention of original copyrights again).
  • File:Balakirev1860s CuiIP 73 600.jpg—no author dates given or verifiable, needed
  • File:Miranda - The Tempest JWW.jpg—source?
  • File:Von Meck.jpg—once again, need information on PD in home country

These were all images taken from Commons, except for File:Von Meck.jpg, which is the same file that you found for me when Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky was in FAC. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate some help on this one. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

	<font=3> Thanks again for your helpful review of the images. featured article today! Ruhrfisch ><>°° and Finetooth (talk ) 05:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope to use File:Vilhjalmur Stefansson.jpg in a forthcoming article.I have met this Library of Congress "no known restrictions" before, and am uncertain whether this demonstrates PD. If it doesn't, can you advise what further information should be got, to make it incontrovertibly PD? Stefansson was born in 1879 and looks around 30 in the picture, so it was probably taken in about 1912 when he was between Arctic expeditions. I do have a an alternative, but it's not nearly so good (File:Stefansson prtrait.jpg) Brianboulton (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and helpful reply. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang. I was told in peer review that there are three images with questionable licensing—File:Rimsky-Korsakov 1866.jpg, File:Nadezhda Purgold.jpg and File:Stpeteconservatory.jpg. The last is reportedly from a postcard printed in 1913. I have contacted the uploader of the first two images; the uploader of the third is no longer with English Wikipedia. So far, I have had no response. How would I go about tracking down these images down to prove PD? Thanks in advance for your help. Jonyungk (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Thomas S Monson.jpg was originally licensed under GNU 1.3. I'm not sure how that migrates to CC (which is also listed as a license on the image description page). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a question about two images that I wanted to use for

• File:Tchaik3.jpg (Tchaikovsky with his nephew Bob Davydov): Copyright Novosti Press Agency, from the Tchaikovsky House-Museum at Klin. It is also shown at this page on tchaikovsky-research.net.
• File:Tchaikovsky with wife Antonina Miliukova.jpg: Collection of John Warrack. It is also shown at this page on tchaikovsky-research.net.

I uploaded File:Tchaik3.jpg back in 2007 and did not know what I was doing at that time; File:Tchaikovsky with wife Antonina Miliukova.jpg was taken from Commons. Especially since both Bob and Tchaikovsky's wife are discussed at length in the article and there are no free-image equivalents available, it seems as though using these images would be justified as fair use. If they would qualify, I could write up rationales for using these images without a problem. Also, since File:Tchaikovsky with wife Antonina Miliukova.jpg: was originally taken from Commons, would it have to be re-uploaded to Wikipedia since their use as non-free historic images would be covered only under US copyright law? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure we're on the same page when you mention "some particular display of the relationship between the subjects in the photos that had been discussed by critical sources". In one photo, Tchaikovsky and Bob are wearing matching outfits; in the other, Tchaikovsky and his wife are posed as husband and wife (the photo was taken during their honeymoon), and while the photos as such are not discussed in the article, they have been mentioned by, I believe, Brown, Holden and possibly Warrack; the relationships between Bob, Tchaikovsky and his wife are discussed in the article. It seems like that plus the argument about the images' irreplacability would be enough for their inclusion, as long as all 10 guidelines for non-free images is met Please let me know whether there was something that I missed—I'd really like to know. Jonyungk (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I definitely know that context of the relatinship as shown in the photo has been discussed in the case of Tchaikovsky and his wife; though I'm less sure about Tchaikovsky and Bob, it would surprise me if the relationship as shown in that photo had not been discussed. So what exactly do I need at this point to warrant their inclusion? Jonyungk (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining everything so well. Should this commentary be included (quoted) in the article, or how should it be cited, to warrant the inclusion of the photos? Jonyungk (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any other way the photos can be used, or under a different license? I have looked through Brown, Poznansky and Warrack and so far found no commentary of the kind you wish me to include; I will try Holden next but otherwise do not know where to look. Jonyungk (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Holden had a comment from Tchaikovsky's wife on the honeymoon photo but nothing like what you said was needed to keep it in the article. Will wait to hear from you before I do anything but please let me know whether the photos have to go and I'll pull them. Jonyungk (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) Thanks for the advice. I have never seen Von Brosch credited for the photo of Bob and Pyotr in biographies of Tchaikovsky, only Novosti for copyright. Same goes for the image of Tchaikovsky and his wife. However, the earliest I have seen either of these photos published has been in Warrack, which would mean thay would still be protected until roughly 2039. This woud mean, I am guessing, that the template would not be appropriate. I know you are limited in time these days, but thank you for what you have put into this project. It is greatly appreciated. Jonyungk (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang, I noticed the other day you helped out on FAC image review I was doing (I've just started doing these; not very sure on my feet yet). I've run into a complex one, where I think the images can't be used—there are two, taken in 1955 and both PD in Australia—but I'd appreciate a second opinion if you have time. It's Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steve Dodd/archive1. If you do a search for "image review," you'll see where it starts, or it might be faster for you to search for my conclusion and work your way back: "I believe these images fail because they were regarded as copyrighted in the U.S. as of 1996, and are therefore copyrighted for 95 years from the date of first publication". But if you're too busy, no worries. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot. One more question in case you know the answer. Is there a rule that explicitly says images on Wikipedia (not on the Commons, but just on the English Wikipedia) have to be in the public domain in the U.S., rather than only in their country of origin? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad you seem to be in action again, perhaps only momentarily. However, I am currently engaged on a big Gustav Mahler project, and I wonder if you can help me with a couple of image and soundfile problems, bearing in mind how useful your assistance has been in the past, on similar matters:-

• Alma Mahler: Neither of the two Commons files File:Alma 1900.jpg and File:Alma 1909 portrait.jpg have source details, and the licences are plainly nonsense. I am certain that both of these photographs would have been published prior to 1923; do you have any suggestions as to how I can find the details?
• In my search for soundfiles I have been directed to Archive.org, and in particular to this and this and more here. Are these files really PD? And do you know how can ogg soundfiles be created from them?

I realise your time is limited and you may not get to this, but thanks anyway. Best wishes, Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

They didn't seem to do any harm... Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Okay. Thanks. :D Subzerosmokerain (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to illustrate an article on English Wikipedia with a picture from a book published in France in 1911. The book's French author died in 1945. Because the author died less than 70 years ago I believe that the book is still under copyright in France, and I'm therefore not allowed to upload a scanned image to Commons. But am I allowed to upload the picture to English Wikipedia given that the publication date is before 1923? Aa77zz (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. Aa77zz (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If I can catch you during one of your "on" times, would you mind looking at the images in the Mahler article, now at Peer Review? I think they are mainly OK but I'd like to have any potential problems identified. I've not made any progess with the soundfile search, but that can wait for the moment. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: You gave me your informal view that the 16 Mahler images were all OK and correctly licensed. The article is now at FAC; in view of the shortage of image reviewers now patrolling FAC, if you have a spare moment for Wiki would it be possible to report that information there? I'd be most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The article has been promoted. Thanks for all your help, first in securing the lead image and then your careful checking of the licencing. Great work. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang, are you able to help with this and this? I don't know what needs to be done next to move it into the "Characteristics" section of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang, could you take another look in there (noting our concerns)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still with the great man, and I'm working on Symphony No. 8 (Mahler). Can I ask your opinion on an image question? Donald Mitchell's book, published in 1985, has several illustrations from Mahler's manuscript score. As Mahler died in 1911, is it possible to use these in the article, under a PD-old licence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I really do appreciate your help in these matters. Is PD-US the correct license (PD-old is life of author plus 100 years)? Final query: can an image of a ticket printed in 1910 for the first performance be used free of copyright, & if so under what licence? Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang - A personal request from me this time :) Would you mind taking a look at the images in Horses in World War I? I would like to take it to FAC in the near future, and would like to have an expert look over the images first, since there are quite a few. Thanks in advance, but no big deal if you don't have the time or interest. Dana boomer (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I have replaced the four photos with image licensing (since I couldn't find better licensing on any of them). Would you be able to check the four new photos for any licensing issues I may have missed? The four new images are listed on the talk page for easy reference. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the long response time. I have replaced the two final images with which you found problems. Would you mind taking one more look through the images to make sure there are no lingering issues? I would like to nominate for FAC in the next couple of days, but would like your final word first! Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Jappalang. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 May 14.
Message added 09:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

statue base states that Illich commissioned it <br. />—NBahn (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang. I've got an article at FAC and have an image licensing question I hope you can answer. I'm using a picture of Sam Houston that is a derivative of File:SHouston.jpg, which is PD. The new picture (File:SHouston_2.jpg) was uploaded by the restorer with a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Is that correct, or is the derivative also PD? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started working on the

Jappalang, I'm rushed, but Spongie555 (talk · contribs) nommed an illprepared FAC, and I've just noticed a lot of images he's uploaded to Chula Vista, California that appear to be copyvios, along with a long list of copyvio messages on his talk. Would you have time to deal with this editor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've left him a note on his page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope you are doing well. I want to thank you again for your assistance in creating File:Timothy McVeigh's movements during Oklahoma City bombing.svg for the Oklahoma City bombing article during its FAC. I am currently working on Raid at Cabanatuan, which I would like to take to FAC at some point. I have multiple free images for the article, but I don't have one of the prisoner camp itself. I have several scanned images from a few books of drawings of the overhead view of the camp. If I were to e-mail those to you, would you be interested/able to create a single image that could be used to support the article? There would be no rush on this, as it would probably be weeks/months before I'd nominate the article. If you are too busy or are not interested, no worries, I already appreciate your assistance with the other image. Please let me know if you have any questions or want further clarification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked the images, and most of them are contained in several books, each specifying they are U.S. Army images. I just went through the images and corrected many of the sources/authors as well. I also sent an e-mail to the National Archives to see if they can provide larger and/or additional images about the event. Would you like to e-mail me your e-mail address so I could send you the maps? I just realized that attachments can't be sent through the Wikipedia e-mail. I would greatly appreciate you creating an image, but if you are busy, please put this at the bottom of your pile, as there's no rush. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for going beyond the call of duty (or volunteerism I guess is more accurate)! The route image looks great and I have added it to the article. I had stumbled across the Life images before, but I forgot to add a link (probably because I was disappointed they couldn't be added as free images). Thank you for pointing me in the direction of a few more sources. I'll get to adding King's source this weekend. I've also placed a few more on hold in my library. For the action map, an isotropic image could be interesting, but I'm fine with whatever you think is best. I had also seen that drawing before (as well as similar ones by other POWs), but thought they were all under copyright. I've added that one as well. As for the conditions in the camp, I definitely can expand on some of the events and privileges that were allowed by the Japanese. The one thing I'd really like to find some source on is the Japanese reaction to the raid. All of the sources I've viewed are from American authors/former prisoners, so it is undoubtedly going to be more focused on their perspective. I'm going to ask and see if anybody at WP:JAPAN can find anything. Thank you again, and I'll keep looking to the other sources. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph in the POW camp section about some of the amenities that were allowed for the prisoners. I've currently got at least three additional books coming to my library through interlibrary loan, so that may be expanded. I've left a message at WP:JAPAN, but I don't have high hopes on their being available sources for the Japanese reaction. I e-mailed you another image a few days ago, just want to make sure you got it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, take your time. I'm still waiting on adding another three or four book sources so I got plenty of time. I figured that scan might be more helpful than some of the prior overhead images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-update! I am still doing the action map! Jappalang (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great! I've finished adding all of the sources available to me and had my several copyedits. I'm looking to nominate in the next week or two, would that be sufficient time or do you need additional time? Again, the schedule is up to you, there's no rush for me. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's just a few more weeks, then there's no worries on waiting. Another great addition to the article's images will be all the more helpful in generating interest in reading the article and reviewing it. I'll work on other projects in the meantime. Thank you for taking the time to do this. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "ineptitude" you're talking about, that looks excellent! If you ever want to go further with it by adding the 3D features, that would be great, although I definitely understand if you have other more pressing projects. I'll replace the black-and-white image tomorrow and start the nomination within the next few days. Thank you for the time you have spent working on this, this will be another fine addition to the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to reword some of the positions from "enemy" to "Japanese" (if it's easy to fix)? That would probably help balance out any issues with NPOV. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that will read a little better. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I would appreciate it if you would cast your eye over, Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_July_4#File:Wales_Ireland_1950.png, thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I have found some older usage of the Dragon, and linked it on the PUI Fasach Nua (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

On the off chance that I might catch you "in", I wonder if you you could glance at the Tosca images, none of which were posted by me. I think that they are probably all PD, but I am very dubious about some of the licencing and would be grateful for any comment or advice, either on the talkpage or the peer review which is here (I also hope that some day you will be editing articles again - I miss the poems). Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. There are a couple of new questions today re the images. They're under "Image comments from Jappalang" here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I thank you for responding so quickly and thoroughly to my request, and for your help in sorting out the image problems? We have had excellent advice in this respect, and are most grateful. Do let me know, when you return to active article building, if I can help in any way. Brianboulton (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your image advice, particularly that panoramic view, which I've added to the article.

Hi there.

If you get the chance (no rush at all) could you double-check the image copyrights on

Thought so—that one looked dubious to me. It probably is PD (the man died in 1901) but with no author it's impossible to confirm. – 

iridescent

22:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• File:Orfeo libretto prologue.jpg First two lines of the prologue score, 1609 Venice edition
• File:Frontispiece_of_L'Orfeo.jpg Title page of L'Orfeo, 1609 Venice edition
• File:Orfeo libretto dédicace.jpg Dedication to Francesco Gonzaga, 1609 Venice edition
• File:Orfeo libretto instruments characters.jpg Characters and instruments list, 1609 Venice edition

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang. Can you point me to the right resource to consult to answer the following question: where copyright on a photograph or work of art is life of the author plus seventy years, but the author of the work cannot be determined, what are the 'fall back' criteria for deciding whether it is in copyright (a) if one is working with a photograph of the work directly and (b) if it is an image of the work in a published book or newspaper (but the book/paper provides no source identification for the image)? I'm happy to just be given a link to a wikipage / web resource - i'm not looking for you to write out an answer yourself (unless that is the only option!). Grateful for any pointers. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded the description and revised the licencing of this image, but I'm still uncertain about the PD status of these Bain photographs. Is this one OK, do you think? Brianboulton (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I did find a template on the Commons, {{

I've been able to get some good images from the Nixon library, including of a Nixonette dress! They have a video clip of the float on which Vicki rode, working on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The library is sending me that clip on DVD. Where should I turn for advice on how to get it from DVD to upload? Apparently it is very good footage, with audio, taken by the Senate.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but could you help with the image to the right? It doesn't have an author, and I think it was taken from here. I'm not sure what the author should be. What would the correct course of action be here? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've got a couple for you.

1. Can the New York Jets's old logo Image:NYJets1978.png be illustrated without copyright worries, after all it is simply ornate lettering?

1. If not, what about a utilitarian article such as a glass with the logo on it (given as a premium at Mobil gas stations)?

Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So if I put it in a group of Jets memorabilia (a couple of footballs, two glasses of different designs, a coffee mug, several pins, and a lanyard), it should be OK? I've taken the picture but will not upload it until it sounds reasonable to someone who knows image policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jappalang, I am expanding and improving Evelyn Waugh. I want to use three images of Waugh: a 1930 painting of his youthful self, and photographs of him in middle and old age. Of these, only the middle-aged one is PD; the other two require Fair Use rationales. Waugh's appearance changed so much in his life, and his appearance was so reflective of his character, that I feel the single PD picture is inadequate for the reader's full understanding of the man. I would welcome some informal advice on whether you think it reasonable to include one or both of these non-free images and, if a choice needs to be made betwen them, which you think would have the stronger case. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note. Waugh's appearance, particularly the premature ageing represented in the final picture, has certainly been commented on. I will develop the article's text, and consult again when it reaches peer review, hopefully next week. Brianboulton (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Could I call on your patience and ask you to look at the Waugh article again? It is now at peer review; I have removed the younger of the two non-free images (the Henry Lamb portrait) as it would be harder to justify this on any strict interpretation of WP non-free policy. However, Waugh's prematurely aged and generally raddled appearance from his fifties onwards is referred to in the article's text and in sources; I have added more specific caption. Could you let me know if in your view the use this image can now be justified? If you think not I will remove it. If you can identify any problems with the remaining images, that would be even more helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang - If you have the time, would you please look over the images in Appaloosa? It's the next one I'm taking to FAC and I always like to make sure the images are cleaned up beforehand. If you don't have the time, not a big deal; if you do, your help will be much appreciated! Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And hi from the other editor on Appaloosa. Per a peer review suggestion, we are looking at adding a chart showing the various spotting patterns. However, it, by necessity, is image heavy. Can you go to Talk:Appaloosa#Kim.27s_chart_idea and let us know if any of these (the lead image of the section and the ones on the chart) are apt to cause heartburn? Most came from Flickr, mostly uploaded by Pitke or Kersti, if you know the uploaders by reputation and if that helps. Montanabw^(talk) 21:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question about the copyright status of two images and Dana Boomer directed me to you. File:US Retreat from Taejon.jpg and File:24th Infantry in Korea.jpg were photographed by US Army soldiers in 1950 and released on a US Army Flickr account under this attribution. I was under the impression that both are in public domain as they are confirmed government works, and any other claim to these two images expired after 50 or 60 years. Is this correct? Can these images be used? —Ed!^(talk) 19:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexander of Lincoln is a few short steps away from going up at FAC, and while the other three illustrations are all good and fine, File:Cotton Claudius B VII f.224 Merlin Vortigern.jpg should be good, I just need to know if the tagging on it is good. Help??? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

After our last discussion, I started to go over some image I've uploaded that I assumed were in the public domain. I think File:Rosendale trestle inaugural run.jpg and File:Rosendale station and trestle.jpg may have still have copyrights, despite being published in the 19th century. Could you please delete them while I attempt to contact the copyright holders for permission and possibly higher resolution versions?
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for the template link. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been suggested that a crop of Randolph Churchill from File:Levi Eshkol-Vera Weizmann-Randolph Churchil1955.jpg would be a useful addition to the images on the Waugh article. The image has a PD Israel licence; do you think it is also PD in the US? I won't crop or load until you confirm it's OK to do so. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang - I'm finally having a few minutes to return to your concerns about some of the historical images in the Appaloosas article, and I am a little unsure of your final position on them.

• For File:Viennaspottedstallion1740.jpg, the image caption in the book from which it was taken implies that it was first published in the 18th century, but does not give specific publication information. Is this enough, or should we look to replace the image?
• For File:Nezperceindians1895ish.jpg, you say that "her courtesy [of releasing the image to the author] might constitute publication" and make the image in the public domain. Does "might" mean that the image is OK to use or are you unsure?
• For File:Barnesspottedhorsephoto.jpg, you say "The circus photograph might be of concern since it is not certain if the library acquired the rights properly." A description of the collection is here - it is actually a division of the San Antonio public library, so there would have been no rights transference between the two organizations as they are all one. Apparently the collection was started by a man named Harry Hertzberg, who then bequeathed his collection to the library. Does this help with figuring out if the license is OK?

I've also added extra source information to all three images, which should take care of that concern. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jappalang. X-Ray of a Lie was produced by Wolfgang Schalk, and Wschalks (talk · contribs) says he is Schalk.[1] Would you be able to lead him through getting an image uploaded, here? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SO much-- I know how time consuming this is. If you run into problems with his English (unsure how much English he speaks), please ping me for Spanish help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Would this image fall under Wikipedia:Logos#Copyright-free logos? I found the image here. I believe it is copyright-free because it only contains shapes and words but don't know if it is trademarked. How would I find out if it is trademarked? Cunard (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the image and confirming that it is copyright-free. I did not find it registered as a trademark, so I have uploaded it to File:WePay Logo.png for use in WePay. Best, Cunard (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the image page. How did you find that it was registered as a trademark? My search (typing "WePay" into the search bar) did not return anything. Cunard (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so that's how you perform the search. I've also added a durable link to the uspto.gov using WebCite. Thank you very much for your help with this image. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am working with User:Tim riley on a major biographical article on this English composer, and I have just sent it for peer review. I am aware that there are image issues to be settled, as usually happens with subjects who lived into the 1930s. In particular:-

• The two paintings, File:Rosen - Frederick Delius.jpg and File:Delius-gerhadi-1912.jpg. They were both painted in 1912; Jelka Rosen died in 1935 and Ida Gerhardi in 1927. But are they still under copyright in the US?
• The drawing File:Delius-by-Krohg-1897.jpg might be in the same category, except we have information that it was published "in a Norwegian newspaper" in 1897
• File:Julius-Delius.jpg and File:Frederic-delius-circa-1882.jpg: We have made enquiries at Bradford Library as to any possible authorship or publication information, and drawn a blank. As both clearly entered the UK public domain under the 70-year rule before 1996, can they be treated as PD in the US?
• File:Grieg-Delius-Leipzig 1887.jpg: this, from around 1887, is pretty clearly a private snapshot, very unlikely to have been published, with the author's name completely lost now. The provisional date is suggested in the source.

The remaining images should be less problematic, but the licencing may need adjusting. I have some alternatives up my sleeve, should all or some of the above fail. THe PR will be open a while, so there is no cause for hurry over these, but your help or advice would be much appreciated. I am continually grateful to you for image advice; please let me know if I can assist you in any way - reviews, etc. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your most detailed responses to my queries. We will be working on these, as the peer review proceeds. Did you manage to glance at the other images? As to the alternatives up my sleeve these include:-

• File:Romeo und Julia auf dem Dorfe 1.jpg (1919 woodcut of A Village R and J, from Commons}
• Fisk Jubilee singers, from the Illustrated London News 1873, not uploaded yet
• 1920 lithograph of Delius by Munch not uploaded yet
• Notice of 1899 St James Hall concert not uploaded yet

Possible problems with the Munch, I fear, but what about the others? Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Late note: Ruhrfisch has found File:Quatrefoil for Delius.jpg, and suggests it should be added to the Delius article. It appears to my half-trained eye to be free, but as you have signed off the images at the FAC, I think you should be asked to pass judgement on this one. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• See the GA review at Talk:Clint Eastwood. J Milburn approved them. But when its too good to be true it nearly always isn't..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

WHAT then do you suggest?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang. I was wondering if you could help me out with something. I've discovered an image I'd like to use for the article Flowing Hair dollar on the Smithsonian website, but I'm not sure if it's PD or not. This is the link. The Smithsonian image use guidelines on Wikipedia are a little confusing, so I thought maybe you could help me make sense of them. Thanks in advance!-RHM22 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your time! The search for a suitable image will have to continue!-RHM22 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang. It has been pointed out to me that the Walk Thru History link you used in making the map is dead. Can you fix it please? Thanks for any help you might be able to provide. Parsecboy (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Since Elco's gone away I find myself without a copyright sensei, so you'll have to do :P I came across a rather convoluted scenario I've described at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions ([2]) but that hasn't gotten a response. You might be able to assist. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You are a gentleman and a scholar. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I recently had Schenn's article up at FAC, and there was a question raised about the images of Schenn in a Maple Leafs jersey. When you have a chance, would you mind taking a look? Your name was dropped as a good person to ask about images / copyright / etc. There is no rush, as I can't renominate for a couple weeks, but I would appreciate any help you might be able to offer. Thank you! Canada Hky (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, there are a few other images on Flickr, I will try to look for a clearer headshot. Unfortunately, nothing without a helmet just yet. Canada Hky (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen from some other user's talk, and from your own, you seem a bit of an image guru. I'm expanding the article on Ron Hextall (currently in my sandbox) and am looking for an image to use in the lead. I can't find anything free, so have resigned myself to needing to use a FUI. I would like to use the second down on this page, but am not sure if Getty Images can be used here? I know that news agency images shouldn't be used, but can't find anything specific on Getty Images? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, Harrias ^talk 08:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jappalang, how are you? I am starting a project on Percy Grainger, and am looking for an appropriate lead image. The present one, from the Bain collection, doesn't have sufficient information to establish that it is PD in the USA. There are lots of images of Grainger, either in books or online, many of which are highly likely to have been published before 1923 when he was 40 and pretty famous. However, I have not been able to establish original publication details for any of these, apart from a group photograph involving Edvard Greig which is unsuitable for a lead image. I wonder if you can help? The project is as yet in its early stages, so no pressure. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

After your prodigious work in finding photographs, I hardly dare approach you again...But TonyTheTiger has added this soundfile to the Grainger article: File:Seventeen Come Sunday.ogg. There are no details given of the performance date, or of the performers, beyond what's in the licence - "a sailor or employee of the United States Navy". I find it difficult to accept that there is sufficient information here to establish that this performance is PD; would you look at it? A minor matter is that the piece's correct title is "I'm Seventeen Come Sunday". Brianboulton (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to update you (wherever you may be): Grainger is now at peer review. I have added a few more images, but I think these are all pretty safe. Those which you found are what, in my view, gives he article some real distinction, so thanks again. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I can establish that the sketch of the drowning scene is at least roughly contemporaneous with the trial in 1818 (perhaps a little after). Would that be sufficient to remove the doubt on its licensing? I did that article, and as the only true "legal" article I've ever done (I'm a lawyer), it's a bit of a pet with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on the rhabdomyolysis FAC. You stated that some image descriptions need corrections. Could you clarify what corrections are needed please? JFW | T@lk 09:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Percy Grainger was promoted FA yesterday, after a shorter-than-usual FAC. Your review and image help did a lot, I am sure, to expedite its passage so, once again, many thanks.

There are a couple of small issues on other articles I would welcome your advice on:-

• Evelyn Waugh: During its TFA yesterday, someone added a signature to the infobox. Could you please look at the source and licencing, as I am unsure that this meets the PD criteria.
• I am working on my next project, Kathleen Ferrier. There are unlikely to be any PD images of her (she was born in 1912 and only became notable in the mid-1940s). The current lead image, which requires a fair use rationale, was in place before I started work on the article. Personally I'd rather replace this with an image which can be dated and attributed, though it will still require a rationale. I'm also worried about the "Orfeo" image later in the article. Definitely not PD, but the role was such an important factor in Ferrier's professional life that a second fair use rationale might be justifiable. I would value your thoughts on this. Brianboulton (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have dumped both non-free images from the old article, and put a replacement non-free portrait in the lead. In this case the photographer and the provenance of the image are clearly established. Can you let me know if you think it will do - the article is at PR at the moment? If you can see any problems with the other images I've added, it would be good to know now. (Of course, your comments on the prose are also very welcome, if you can spare the time). Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I don't know how to eliminate the "moire" effect on the lead portrait, and am uncertain as to how to reduce the image size to meet non-free usage requirements, other than switching to "upright" which I have done. Any help would be appreciated. I will switch the King Georges Hall image. Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know that Ferrier is now at FAC. If you can OK the images there, I'd be very grateful (and for any other passing comment). Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The svg you created looks great; thank you very much. I am not particularly knowledgeable about svgs and was hoping you could help me understand a couple of issues I've run into with them. If you have time, please take a look at File:Local vs uploaded svg.gif. You'll see a composite screen shot: the upper half is a screenshot taken on my local PC of an svg file I built; the lower half is a screenshot of the same svg file as rendered by Wikipedia. You can see that the fonts are different and the text is not centred in the boxes properly in this version of the image. Can you tell me what is causing this, and how you avoided it for your image? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Mike, this usually is the case when you use a font that is not available on the Wikimedia servers. One way to bypass this is to convert the fonts into paths, then upload the SVG. Another is to use the default fonts that come with Inkscape, but even then there are a few that are not installed on the servers. There is a list of installed fonts on the Wikimedia servers. Give me a few minutes to search for the link. Jappalang (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, take a look at

Wikipedia:SVG Help#Font issues and meta:SVG fonts. Jappalang (talk

) 09:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- I will have another go at converting some of the other issue grids I've created to svg, and see if I can make that work. On another point, I have just had a quick look at the copyright status of several of the magazines I've already taken to FA, and I am willing to bet that just about all of the ones I thought were out of copyright are in fact copyrighted. Since they've been through FAC already, would you mind taking a look at a few of them for me and giving me your opinion on which images could be reasonably taken as fair use? The ones I would like opinions on are Startling Stories, Planet Stories, Fantastic Adventures, and Unknown -- I haven't checked all of these yet (have to go to work now) but the ones I've checked so far have been copyrighted. If you have time to give me a fair use opinion, I'd really appreciate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been working with colleagues on this important article for some time. It has a large number of images and soundfiles, all of which need vetting. If you can find time to look these over, we'd be very grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Per your peer review comments on the soundfiles, I've removed those for which you queried the licence. A couple of new pics have been added to the article since you commented; these are File:BLW Handel.jpg (replacing the earlier drawing of the Handel statue) and File:Worthy-is-the-lamb.jpg replacing "The trumpets shall sound" soundfile. Would you mind confirming that these images are free of problems? Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if I may bother you for an opinion on the Commons image File:Benjamin Britten 1945.jpg? It appears in several WP articles, but I am not sure it is fair game under WP rules. I'm hoping to use it myself, and your expert opinion would be greatly valued. Tim riley (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I rather feared as much, but it's best to have these things sorted out. Tim riley (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer reviewing an article on Stephen Sondheim I rashly stated that a non-free image was fair use, but I had forgotten that Mr. Sondheim is still alive. I wonder if I could further trespass on your kindness to ask if you know of an image of Sondheim that would be within WP's rules? Sorry to keep bothering you. Tim riley (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I rather feared so, but most grateful for an authoritative opinion. Glad, as ever, for your guidance, Tim riley (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I am working on an article about the writings which the poet Philip Larkin did, as an undergraduate, under the feminine pseudonym

OK, so the article is now drafted in mainspace: Brunette Coleman (sorry about the typo, above). I'd be delighted if you had time to look at the images, and perhaps even the text; the article is at peer review, here. On the question of using a non-free Larkin image, I very much doubt that the one-line description of Larkin's camp apearance could be used to justify such usage, and I can't justify extending this. Another thought occurs to me, however: the Coleman writings form the main part of the text in Trouble at Willow Gables and other fictions in 2002. I have the book; could I reasonably claim fair use for an image of this book's cover (which would make a very appropriate lead image - see this)? Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

To keep you up to date: following the lengthy and helpful peer review I have nominated Brunette Coleman at FAC. I have left all images as they were at the peer review, i.e. I have not risked a fair-use Larkin image as conemplated. I hope that you will be able to give the images the all-clear in their present form. Many thanks for your earlier help. Brianboulton (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I got the photo of Ragnar Nurkse's memorial stone from the Estonian version of Wikipedia. You can check it out: http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar_Nurkse The original uploader has given it a CC 3.0 license, as usual. So I don't think any copyright has been violated. The photo is being used in

Regards Abhilasha369 (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am working on the Bizet article; not much to show in article space yet, but I have a few image issues that you may be able to comment on, if you can spare a few moments.

• The standard Bizet lead image (used in the WP biography and all his opera articles) is File:Georges bizet.jpg, but the file description does not provide adequate source or author information. I have established that the photographer is Étienne Carjat (1828-1906) and that the photograph is dated 1875. Can you give any lead on its original publication, or on any publication before 1923?
• I would also like to use File:Straus, Geneviève - 2.jpg, but again the source information is inadequate. The portrait appears in Bizet's published biographies, in black and white versions which I imagine may still be under copyright. I have found this on the internet, but it is spoiled by the visible web address. Daunay's dates are 1828-91 so I believe the image is PD. Do you have any thoughts as to an alternative source?
• I'd also like to use File:Jacques Fromental Halévy by Charles Geoffroy.jpg (Genevieve's father). Can you confirm that the correct licence should be PD-US?

Any help you can give would be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jappalang, a while ago you reviewed the article linked above, and one of your concerns was about two non-free images. I have looked for replacements, but haven't been able to find any, and I do think that they meet the Non-free content criteria (so they don't have to be replaced), but I wanted another opinion. Do you think these images meet the non-free content criteria? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you would have to contact historical societies and libraries in Utah before considering using the two mentioned images as "non-free". NFCC's first criteria is "No free equivalent." Silver Reef had two local newspapers (Silver Reef Miner and Silver Reef Echo[3]), so it would not be inconceivable to find photographs in these 19th century papers for use ({{

PD-1923}}). Jappalang (talk

) 03:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Only one edition of The Silver Reef Echo was published (I believe it was February 1877), but The Silver Reef Miner was published from 1878 to 1883. Would I have to look at the original, or would microfilm copies suffice? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Microfilm copies are perfectly fine (I used them for my articles on Lat). You would have to find a way to transfer them to a digital medium though (my library had a microfilm-photocopier; I then scanned the photocopies). Keep note of the edition, date, and page of the newspaper on which the photograph was published. Jappalang (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Images for coins are a pain. I have done what was suggested to me this summer and asked PCGS for permission to use their illustrations online. They are pros and take images of every coin that comes across their plate for certification and grading, plus they have a large online website. As there is a major coin show this week in Pittsburgh it may be a few days before I hear from them. I imagine you've seen my Conan article comments, I will take a second look later on today.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I've proved one lie on Bring Us Together. Richard Moore said that Vicki's sign stood out because it was hand lettered. I've got a newspaper image (not yet uploaded) of a bunch of high school kids at the rally and, wait for it, all the signs are hand lettered. I continue to believe Vicki's sign never existed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this is my current project, following on from

Can I raise a couple more queries with you? First, is it OK to provide external links to the YouTube recording of the Caruso/Ancona duet and to other arias avaialable on YouTube? Seconely, I'm looking for a free photograph of the theatre in which the opera was first performed in 1863. This link is the theatre in question, and the photograph is apparently contemporary, but I don't think the licencing is sufficient as it stands. I'd value your opinion. I don't think there are other image issues in the article, which is now at peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If I could trouble you for some image copyright assistance, there is a photograph of Learie Constantine currently on Commons called File:Learie Constantine.jpg. The description page is a little out of date but I managed to trace the image to here, and more specifically, to item 23 here. While I'm gradually getting better at the copyright stuff, I'm not sure here. It is obviously Australian and taken before 1946, but I'm not too sure it was ever published: I've never seen this anywhere else. Any advice would be appreciated, thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated and I think it's a bit clearer in my head now too. I'm fairly sure this is unpublished except on that site, which makes me think we shouldn't have it on here; I actually already took it off the Constantine article, just in case. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed comments on the copyright questions concerning the Théâtre Lyrique photos. I doubt I will ever understand it all, however. You seem to be very conversant with these issues, so I would like to ask a particular question. I have an architecture book with folio plates called Les Salles de spectacle de Victor Louis published in Paris in 1903. So I believe it is PD in the US. But is it PD in France? The authors are Paul Guadet (1873–1931) and Charles-Henri Prudent (1868–19??). I have not been able to determine the year that Prudent died. Should I upload at the English Wikipedia or Commons? I have been delaying uploading the files until I have a better idea of where it belongs. Thanks for advice! --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, many of the plates have artist attributions as well as other information. For example, Pl. 1 ("Vue perspective de l'entrée principale. Théâtre de Bordeaux") has "Héliog. Chauvet" at the lower left of the engraving (apparently a heliogravure is an old type of photogravure) and "C. R. G. Poulleau sculp." at the lower right. In addition, below the latter it says: "Edité par la Librairie de la Construction Moderne Paris". In the lower left corner of the plate is "D'apres l'ouvrage de Louis" and below the title (which is below the engraving) it says "Imp. A. Porcabeuf, Paris". --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful! I'll try to start uploading this week. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang. I have a question about an image related to an article I've started. The photo in question is this one. It's one of those images that has the problem that it was created long before 1923, but there's no evidence that it was published before then, and I can't find a published version from before 1923 myself. I also don't know who the original author of the photo was. There are a couple other ways an image can be PD in the U.S. that I know of: life of the author plus 70 years, and creation 120+ years ago. This is what I'm interested in regarding this photo. For this photo's consideration, whoever the author was would have had to have lived past 1930 (having taken it in 1847), and it was created over 120 years ago. I'm really confused as to whether the image is valid PD or not because of all the different aspects in play, and want to know what your opinion is. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a gut feeling it wasn't kosher in its present form, and hadn't put it in the article I was working on for that reason. Looks like proving its status one way or the other would require resources that I don't have access to. It's unfortunate, but I'm happy that I found out now rather than in the future. Thank you for your efforts and explanation. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

How did you do this? I must have spent 25 minutes on the circusmuseum site fiddling around trying to see if there was a way to get the whole, much larger image but could not figure out anything but to take a screenshot of the 6% size. This looks vastly better!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, then thanks for taking the time to go through that tedious process.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)