Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/November

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

I want to download some paintings in high resolution to put on the wikimedia commons and to feature them in articles. Therefor I went to the Victoria and Albert museum's webpage which allows you to download images in high resolution copies. They allow for a download of the images after stating your name and agreeing to the user agreement at http://collections.vam.ac.uk/information/information_highresolutionimages How does this agreement stand? I am aware that the pictures cannot be copyright protectes as per the Coral lawsuit, but where does the agreement stand?

It is pretty clear that their agreement precludes uploading to Commons. E.g.

• Images may not be passed on for third-party use.
• Images may not be used on any electronic media. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume you were referring to Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

But when we come to breaking a EULA that has also been deemed not against the law? The only thing they could do is to ban me from the site? Am I right? Does a EULA have legal binding? The images are clearly non-copyrightable.

I wasn't responding about a copyright question. They have a license agreement. One you have to agree to in order to gain access to the images. That license agreement clearly precludes uploading to Commons. Now, it is possible the license agreement is unenforceable. But you will have to take that to a court, get a judgement, then get a WMF lawyer to tell us that the court agreement allows you to upload. At least, that's my opinion. And even that may not be enough. As you know the Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp case covers slavish copying, but does not cover other types of copying. How do you know that the images you want to use are fully covered under the case? (They probably do, but I mention this as a complication. The main issue will be your ability to demonstrate that the license is not valid.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. Thank you. Damn shame though. I'll have to read up on the specifics of this type of case.

CFCF (talk

) 23:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

For some relevant information see this link.

It explains how Museums have responded to Bridgeman, specifically by requiring consumers to agree to a licence. While the article expresses skepticism about whether those licenses are enforceable, we would be unable to accept material in violation of the licence absent clear indication from a lawyer that it is OK.

For a blog discussing the case and other aspects, see this link

It specifically mentions the Victoria & Albert Museum --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

In Britain, it may well be that the actual photographs are under copyright (on account of the work and skill used to create them) and the licence agreement may well be enforceable at law. In the US the photographs would not be under copyright (Bridgeman) and an individual might be out of reach of UK legal action. On Wikipedia, only US law is "enforced" though we are asked to respect other nations' laws.[1] On Commons legality both under US law and that of the "country of origin" are insisted upon.[2] However, the Wikimedia Foundation considers it is an "assault" on the concept of public domain for museums to attempt to restrict access[3] and because of this such images on Commons and Wikipedia are permitted. Thincat (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

We've never required a WMF lawyer to tell us to do anything. Under the DMCA, it actively hurts them to tell us it's okay to upload something, and when they don't give an opinion on it and remove it if a properly formatted demand comes in, they're legally protected. The general opinion I've seen has for Wikimedia volunteers to not pay attention to such licenses; a license can only restrict the parties to it, not a third party, so there's nothing they can do to a public domain work uploaded to Commons. (The uploader might be a different matter.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This may all be moot. User:VAwebteam, the Wikipedia account of the official representative of the Victoria and Albert Museum, has uploaded many of the images from their website under a free license, and this is verified through OTRS. It may be worth it to contact them. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very good to know, I will ask them about the images I had in mind.

CFCF (talk

) 21:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Do we know when the original version of the seal was first published? – Quadell ^(talk) 20:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sadly not. Quoting from the Information template: "Original University of California seal: long time ago; This SVG file: 2013". Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 20:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the new, colorized seal with a circle introduces any new copyrightable content (beyond what was already present in the black-and-white outline image). But I'm not at all convinced that the black-and-white version is actually PD. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That was my conclusion too. We may or may not have an answer on how old the seal is: see here. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Three more versions up for the CSD#F5 chop. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 23:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the consensus for building an image for a wikipedia page from a screen grab of a topographic view? There is additional data on the screen, but it was created by myself and I have published no copyright on it. SkoreKeep (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are making a derivative work based on some Google images. Unfortunately for you Google images are copyright, so any derivative work you make of it still requires the original copyright holders permission. So you cannot release such an image freely because you don't actually own the copyright of the underlying image. ww2censor (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. SkoreKeep (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your point is that Google earth and its maps and Earth shots are copyrighted, and therefore derivative works (such as a screen grab) of a Google Earth view is not possible under copyright, However, I direct your attention to this page: File:GoogleGib.jpg. It seems there to say that Earth grabs can be used under fair use as long as the pic is used:

   *To illustrate the subject in question ...and...
   *Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information ...and...
   *On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation

The application I want to do fits under all three restrictions. Does this allow for that use? What must I do to make that assertion when uploading the picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkoreKeep (talk • contribs) 09:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

While it is true that

WP:Other stuff exists, such as File:GoogleGib.jpg, but that particular image is justified because it is being used in an article about Google Earth to illustrate a specific point that likely cannot be conveyed by prose alone. What are you actually trying to do and where will the image be used? It may be possible to make a non-free claim for your image but we really need to know more in order to help you and don't want you to be frustrated when you upload an image that will be deleted. ww2censor (talk

) 12:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll get specific. I'm the owner of a large database of material on nuclear testing; of late I've made extensive changes to teh pages on which that sort of data is stored. See Operation Niblick, for example. I would like to add maps showing the geographical distribution of various testing series. Most of the 900+ US tests have occurred at the Nevada Test Site, north of Las Vegas, but when viewed as a whole from 1946 to 1991 (the last tests) it's a jumble. Separating it out by series would help explain some of the why things were done in the way they were. that would extend to other nuclear countries as well. As that applies to the three reasons above, the use certainly illustrates the subject in question, and the screen grans would include all the attribution data at the bottom of the screens; there is no equivalent available (as far as I know, and I've looked) which allows for the illustrative data to be added to the base topography, and I publish this only on the US pages. The database has never been used to garner a profit; I'm just looking for better ways to use it educationally; the full graphical version is freely available on the Google Earth community.

If any other explanations are requested, I remain your humble servant - SkoreKeep (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a German edition. Is the image too simple to be copyrighted in home country? --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that's ineligible in the U.S., but I have no idea how German courts rule on such things. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded a picture on the 29th October to my Wiki page which is a biography of a very famous Artist called Toni Wille who was formerly the lead vocalist of a Dutch band called Pussycat. I obtained the picture from https://www.facebook.com/pages/PL-Bilderbuch/514198085324032 (Peter Löning)that he posted on facebook. Unfortunately Wiki responded with this message:

This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added: (29 October 2013). If you have created this file yourself, you can choose to license under one of the allowed licenses at the licensing page. If you did not create it, you must usually ask the copyright holder for permission to release it under one of the allowed licenses, and the written permission (or a link to it) must also be provided on this page. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too.

The owner of this picture does not have an official website or a licence. So I replaced it with an other image from the website of another photographer Mr. Micheal Bach who gave me the URL of his website where he had posted the picure : http://wsdh.de/Hierschrievtwi/tabid/55/Article/972/fotogalerie-zur-ndr1-niedersachsen-oldie-show-am-25102013-in-der-sparkassenaren.aspx

Now even this photographer does not have any details to provide other than his website link. Please tell me how to proceed from here. Will you please check the new image and help to complete the requirements in simple language. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toni_Wille_at_Niedersachsen_Oldies_at_Emslandhallen2013.jpg

Thanks very much appreciate your time and patience Cynthiapinto123 (talk) 09:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The images you point to appear to be under copyright as there is no statement otherwise, so you have to get the copyright holder to verify their permission by having them follow the procedure found at

WP:CONSENT. Perhaps Mr. Micheal Bach has control of the pages his images are published on and he may be able to add a Creative Commons licence statement there so long as it is one of the licences we accept. He might also be able to put that specific image on a separate page with a free licence so there would be no need to licence more then the one image. ww2censor (talk

) 10:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. As I understand it, "MacPhisto" and "The Mirror Ball Man" are costumes Bono would wear while in concert, acting in a given persona. Clothing is not subject to copyright, but fictional characters in books are. Were these characters ever "published", like in a comic book or something similar? If they are just costumes that Bono wears, I don't think they're subject to copyright, and I'm pretty sure you can recreate them without worry. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

^{[hello, hello!]}

16:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Then I would interpret these "characters" as simply outfits, not subject to copyright at all. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh thanks

^{[hello, hello!]}

16:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A video screenshot would definitely be a non-free image, since the video itself is copyrighted, so you would have to use it under our

non-free content policy. A drawing of the outfits, based on how they appear at concerts, would be a free image, and could be used in a wider array of circumstances. – Quadell ^(talk

) 16:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a tough one. I would personally opine that mannequins such as this are "utilitarian", imitating a human only in so much as they have to to display clothing. ("Useful articles" are items whose intrinsic function is utilitarian—for example, automobiles, boats, household appliances, furniture, work tools, and clothing. The utilitarian or mechanical aspects of useful articles are not protected by copyright"—Stephen Fishman, JD, The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More) I would be very surprised if any case law exists to say for sure. Dolls are subject to copyright as works of art (in the U.S.), but clothes and furniture are not. It's definitely gray area. I'd be curious if anyone else here had further insights. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• I was leaning that way as well, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I found out that some covers by Burzum, i.e. this and this, are composed of nothing other than images that are in public domain (works by Theodor Kittelsen) and common gothic typeface, a logo based on which is considered to be in public domain too. Can they be transferred to commons? --ɴõɴəχүsƚ 11:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, these should be safe. Compare the cover of
  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, which is a similar situation. Just make sure you can show that the images had previously been published (without the text) — Crisco 1492 (talk
  ) 12:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • And since this, can be this file eligible for copyright? It looks like some simple effect was applied to the work by Theodor Kittelsen, so could this effect make image copyrightable? --ɴõɴəχүsƚ 14:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
    • The latter is clearly a derivative work of this sketch by Kittelsen. But I think it's original enough to have its own copyright. De728631 (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't think the album cover contains any original copyrightable content. It simply reproduces a low-res version of a PD drawing, and adds five words to it. (Note: the album cover now can be seen at File:Hvis lyset tar oss, 1994.jpg.) – Quadell ^(talk) 16:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if the photo is still in copyright because it would have had to be first published with a copyright notice and the copyright would have had to be renewed. If it was first published in the magazine a notice on the title page or first subsequent page of text of that issue would have been required (I think).[4] Even if it is in copyright I think a good fair use claim could be made though a crop would be good (minimal extent of use) and the purpose of use would need to be changed from the existing rationale. I think the image would have a very strong purpose. I found quite a lot of photos of this wonderful machine on the web but none seem to be free. Finally, your article refers to a page on Max Factor's own website showing a different photo so they can't be too ashamed of it. Even though the website's T&C do not give suitable permission perhaps they would give specific permission in this particular case? Thincat (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and if the original photo was unpublished for years it could very well be under copyright and "Keystone-France/Getty Images" might (or might not) have a legitimate exclusive licence. I doubt you could use a crop of this one because it is "less free". Thincat (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi please tell me the status of this page. Has it been approved? I have done my best. This artist needs to be recognized on Wiki as she is an established singer. If there are significant problems that need to be rectified please let me know. Its been a while since this page has been created. Appreciate your helpThanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Toni_Will%C3%A9_(Artist) Cynthiapinto123 (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this to Toni Willé, but this is not the place to ask for this, as it was not a media copyright question! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, can someone look into the apparent problem with ACLmapdrury. The image was tagged, I suppose by the uploader last month, as "public domain," but the image page states quite clearly that it was taken from a reference work published in 1994. Seems to me like this ought to be deleted as a copyvio, but that's a complicated topic and procedure I'm not familiar with. Appreciate it if anyone will take the right steps to deal with this, I'm just bringing it to the attention of the community. Textorus (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If the image is a 'slavish' replica without original new content from before 1923 it may still be public domain according to

CFCF (talk

) 22:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Slavish replica of what? Some of the routes shown did not even exist in 1923, having been built later. The map was obviously newly created for the book when published in 1994, as far as I can tell; the book is full of them, for scores of different railroads. Or is this acceptable practice now, to slap a PD tag on any image you want to slip into Wikipedia without having it questioned? Textorus (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not acceptable and you are questioning it. If the map was first published in 1994 then it will not be public domain. But if, say, it had previously been published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or registration then it would be PD.[5] Without further evidence I think it should be deleted because I doubt a fair use claim would stand up. Thincat (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Besides which someone could draw a simple new map based on the information without it being either derivative or a copyright violation, so a fair use claim would fail. ww2censor (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the image is an (unintentional) copyright violation, and can and should be replaced. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, everyone. It's not worth my time to dig through the byzantine rules and procedures of requesting that the image be deleted, but if anyone else wants to have a go at it, be my guest. I've done my part by notifying the community here. Textorus (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

For future reference, the process of listing possibly unfree files for deletion is well described over at

WP:PUF. I've listed the images from this book, you can find the new listing at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 7#Images from The Historical Guide to North American Railroads. —RP88 ^(talk

) 07:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Textorus (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The image on http://www.teindia.nic.in/mhrd/50yrsedu/q/6J/BM/6JBM0802.htm would be a very good replacement for images on wikipedia, but I am unsure whether it is copyrighted. The webpage gives no copyright notice anywhere, but

Unfortunately not. Indian copyright subsists for a minimum of 60 years and even though there may not be a copyright notice on the website in question, there is no proof or statement that they are

freely licenced either, so we have to assume there are under copyright. You no doubt did not want to hear that. ww2censor (talk

) 23:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have a question concerning a photograph of a building on the campus of the University of Guelph, in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. I have received permission from the U of G to use this picture in the Wikipedia article "RCAF Station Guelph". The University of Guelph is the copyright holder and the picture was taken in Canada around 2008. I don't think it is right to upload this photo in COMMONS, because I did not ask the U of G for permission to make this picture "free for anyone to do who whatever with". It may be suitable to upload it into WIKIPEDIA with an appropriate copyright tag. I have uploaded some of my own pictures into Commons. My questions are: 1) Is my thinking correct? This right place to upload this photo is Wikipedia. and 2) What is the correct copyright tag and/or license tag/ templates to use? Thanks in advance SteveTheAirman (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy to treat such images as any other image with a "non-free" license would be treated. You can upload the image to WP if you can justify the use of the image under the rules of

WP:NFCC#1), since asking someone to take a free photo of a building on a university campus seems reasonably possible. —RP88 ^(talk

) 06:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me as if it meets the fair use criteria, in particular

WP:Image resolution) and other people may feel it ought to be reduced. Thincat (talk

) 13:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If I reduce it, can one of you delete the previous version?

^{[hello, hello!]}

13:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Forget about what I said before, I have just reduce it and it looks awfuly pixelated. What should I do?

^{[hello, hello!]}

13:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not just leave it then and wait and see if anyone has a problem before doing anything? The image has a white border so the size of the actual "art" is less than the whole image. Thincat (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, great. Thanks! Let's see what the others think.

^{[hello, hello!]}

14:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Usually we use a 300 x 300 image size but you can always tag it for reduction with {{Non-free reduce}} and let the bot reduce it. ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I was just placing images on it because they didn't have the right images for it. <-Image removed. AtG ->

DayleLucy101 (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well don't. Any images used must comply with the relevant copyright policies, as explained on your talk page. This is not optional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT proforma regarding profile pic of a legal academic.

Asked by Communications: "Would it work to name the school as the owner since the school paid for the photo?"

Thanks for assistance. Sighola2 (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It would make sense that if it was a work-for-hire, that yes, the school would be the owner in terms of determining copyright and allowing the free license. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Sighola2 (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Could this file be transferred on commons? It is formed by simple letters.--79.43.26.111 (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe it can be considered to be in the public domain in the U.S., its country of origin. If it were correctly tagged as PD, I don't see why it couldn't be transferred to Commons. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A user has recently uploaded this logo as a free file on Commons, with the argument that it does not meet the threshold on originality and is thus PD. However, to me, this logo seems more complicated than other logos in this same grouping, (i.e., those with wordmarks and swooshes, basic shapes) and at absolute best, could probably be an extremely borderline case of PD-ineligible. Because of this, I think it may be better to err on the side of caution and use the file with the FUR, but I'd like to hear some other views on this. – Connormah (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks too complex for public domain to me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur. We should not assume this image does not qualify for copyright protection. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The same image on the commons is up for deletion and I disagree. Remember the US has a very low TOO, so I have suggested keep. ww2censor (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Can someone check the conversation on the user's talk page? The use is suggesting that the .SVG is copyrighted but not the PNG. – Connormah (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

(copied comments from the usertalk page)

Its all a mess up. I meant to change it from an SVG to a PNG because SVG logos have the copyright from the logo and the copyright of the SVG file. I nominated the Commons upload for deletion:

ЛееСуда

. 01:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

SVGs are created in code (much like computer software) and like software the code is copyright the creator. See

ЛееСуда

. 04:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been around the horn at WP but I have very little experience with copyright issues. I have a question about four media files:

• File:Edward Snowden receives Sam Adams award in Moscow.webm
• File:Edward Snowden speaks about NSA programmes at Sam Adams award presentation in Moscow.webm
• File:Edward Snowden speaks about dangers to democracy at Sam Adams award presentation in Moscow.webm
• File:Edward Snowden speaks about government transparency at Sam Adams award presentation in Moscow.webm

All of these files were uploaded to YouTube by WikiLeaks, from where they were copied to WP. My question is, how do we know our license is valid, i.e. that WikiLeaks either was the author of these videos or had its own valid license? The videos themselves don't contain any copyright notices, and WikiLeak's announcement of the videos is silent on copyright ownership as well. If there's no further evidence one way or the other, should the videos be deleted? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikileaks claims copyright on the videos. This is a plausible claim, and no one else claims a competing copyright. This case is no different than the millions of photos and videos uploaded to the Commons where the copyright is claimed by the uploader and released under a free license; we can't prove that the uploader is the copyright holder (that would be an insurmountable barrier), but we believe in good faith that they hold the copyright if they say they do, absent evidence to the contrary. If we didn't take this position, we would have to delete 99% of the cc-licensed content on Commons. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am getting notification that I have not got the correct licence on this photo but I have given free access. What do I need to do ? This photo was taken by me personally. Vector1 nz (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That notice is nearly 6 years old and the image licence looks good now. Is there a current issue with this image? ww2censor (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No issue that I can see. @Vector1, as Ww2censor says the notice on our talk page is almost 6 years old and refers to the day you uploaded the image when it dodn't have a licnce tag on it - something you remedied the next day by licencing it under the GFDL. You can delete the notice from your talk page if you want. NtheP (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

An instructor creates a course. He makes arrangements with a fellow teacher and web designer to place this course on the web (verbal agreement). This person did not do that, and when asked to return the materials he stated since it was given to him it was now in the public domain and he could use it anyway he wanted to. Even to use the materials for his own class. Does not the instructor have the right as the copyright owner to determine it's use in this regard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clpetroff (talk • contribs) 02:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright grants have to be in writing, and we will not allow use of materials like this on Wikipedia. The Instructor either owns the copyright, or more likely the employer who was paying the instructor as they prepared this material owns copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There is detailed discussion about the provenance of a hand written note by Yitzhak Kaduri, an original high resolution copy of this image is available at [6], the site which officially represented the rabbi during his life. News One broke the story originally and have copyrighted a lower resolution copy of the image at their own site, but with their own logo superimposed [7].

English translations do not show assertions of copyright at the original site [8]. and attempts to contact the website repeatedly to encourage them to seek a creative commons licence have been unanswered.

I have uploaded it as 'fair use', on the ground that it is cardinal to the disagreement highlighted in this section of the article, but I seriously doubt whether the original image is copyrighted. It is this last point only I'd value guidance with here. Thank you.Cpsoper (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a couple things here. Generally, text-only works don't carry copyrights related to the image itself, but to the text within. So the original image may not be copyrighted but the message would be, assuming that is his original text (if it's just a recitation from a religious work, that would make it all free). And as such using the whole message/quote may be tricky. It's clearly the text of the note that is the significant factor, not so much how the note appeared, so I would argue the image, if non-free due to the text copyright, is unnecessary but you can do as you already do in the text, summarize the contents of the note, and link, as a reference, to the site that has the image of the note for verification. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that is somewhat helpful. The words are not from a religious text, they are the words of the rabbi, and the seminal words and their translation have been included in the article section. The key point in doubt is whether it's written in his own handwriting, so the image is important. As I wrote, the original higher res image (the one employed) isn't apparently copyrighted.Cpsoper (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Unless it explicitly says it's not copyrighted (and even then in some nations), it's still copyrighted, unless there's some reason why it's not. (That is, it's not a requirement for them to claim copyright anywhere any more.) The photo is not copyrightable at least in the US, and the text written on it--around 100 characters, maybe 20 words--is probably not copyrightable in the US. I'd say it's most likely okay in the US and thus for the English Wikipedia. You'd have to asking someone else for Israeli law, which Commons would be concerned about.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Intrasellar_Craniopharyngioma.ogv

Our video vendor - 'William billy boy' - loaded future wikipedia content as a test to prove ogv file format was properly working. Video vendor did not remove file (forgot?) once his testing was complete. Please advise. Thanks. Freeyrde007Freeryde007 (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

ps I did email him, no response yet.

This file (commons:File:Intrasellar Craniopharyngioma.ogv) is not on Wikipedia but on Commons where it has been nominated for deletion here. Thincat (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Some U.S. newspapers, including for example this one published in 1969, contains photos useful on Wikipedia. The photos are obviously taken not by reporters because the subjects became known to them posthumously and the newspaper probably does not contain a copyright notice on the photos. Are the photos in public domain if it really does not? --ɴõɴəχүsƚ 19:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The newspaper only needed one copyright notice which covered everything (text and images) apart from advertisements which needed separate copyright notices. As long as you can find a copyright notice anywhere in the newspaper, you will have to assume that the photos are copyrighted. --

Stefan2 (talk

) 22:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Frequently, newspapers will reflexively claim copyright on photos they don't actually hold the copyright to. (This is known as copyfraud.) But even if this were the case, we have no information on who actually took the photograph, and under what conditions. So it may be copyrighted, even if it's not copyrighted by the newspaper. Without clear information on the image's copyright status, I'm afraid we can't use it. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, to be clear, they can't be considered free images, but there is the possibility of using them for non-free. However, photographs of victims of crimes that aren't notable themselves typically aren't used as they provide no contextual significance to include (they'd be nice to include but its a high bar to meet). --MASEM (t) 15:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what tag to select for this image. This is a photograph supplied by the subject of the photograph, George O. Jackson Jr., who is also the subject of the Wikipedia page. He owns the image but claims no copyright and the photograph has appeared on websites available for anyone to download. He would like to add that the photograph was taken by Ben Mason.

Thanks for your help.

Joan Louise — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanLouise (talk • contribs) 10:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Joan Louise, the issue is that as it appears at the moment, the copyright doesn't belong to George Jackson but with the photographer, Ben Mason. If the copyright passed from Mason to Jackson that is something that needs to be evidenced to Wikimedia's satisfaction. This can be done by an email from Mason confirming the position being sent to [email protected] - please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for full details. Also you say George Jackson has released the image? Can you supply details of a website where this image is displayed and specifically where is says the image is released/no copyright claim. The absence of a copyright claim does not mean that the image has been released as the assumption is that material is copyright until express permission otherwise is produced. The other option would be for George Jackson to also email permission to Wikipedia. NtheP (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The photo was taken of George O. Jackson Jr. in front of his photograph of a Tarahumara Indian at the opening of his exhibit Mexican Cycles: Imágenes de George O. Jackson de Llano at the Museo Nacional de Antropología, Mexico City, in February 2011. Photograph by Ben Mason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanLouise (talk • contribs) 10:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I will forward this information to George O. Jackson Jr. The photograph was taken by Mason but with Jackson's own iPhone.

Here is the website where this image has appeared:

http://www.latristehistoria.magefilm.com/home/the-project/the-artists — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanLouise (talk • contribs) 10:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I know it sounds crazy but the copyright is Mason's as he is the one pressed the button, even though it's Jackson's phone. The website helps but we need that explicit permission that the image can be used as the website doesn't have an explicit statement. NtheP (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That's okay. Jackson is asking Mason to email permission to Wikipedia. Joan Louise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanLouise (talk • contribs) 15:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

By now Wikipedia should have received permission from both the photographer, Ben Mason, and the subject of the photograph, George O. Jackson Jr. They both emailed permission to Wikipedia on Monday, Nov. 18, 2013, and sent copies to me. Thanks for all your help. I'm not sure how to put a tag on the image. Joan Louise. JoanLouise (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Caught them, image file now marked up with the consent. NtheP (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I uploaded an image to be used for the Billy Fury page. It shows the opening of a road named in his honour, which I judge to be a significant real-world impact and worthy of mention in the article on him. The fair use of this image has been disputed by another Wiki admin.

Link to image and fair use tagging: File:Mural_of_Billy_Fury_at_opening_of_Billy_Fury_Way,_July_2011.jpg

- The original photo is of Billy Fury, taken possibly in the late 1950s, possibly linked to 'Halfway to Paradise' A brief internet search does not reveal the photographer or the date.

- However the photo is used in many places across the internet as a representation of Billy Fury.

- It has been used by the main Billy Fury fansite as their logo for the last 15 years. See http://www.billyfury.com/

- It was used as the basis for a public works mural for Billy Fury Way, paid for by the local government (Camden Council)

- The photograph of the mural I uploaded appears on the fansite mentioned above, where there are several first-hand accounts of being present at the event and taking photographs. The image page does not say who took it. The image also appeared on a local newspaper's website. It may or may not have been taken from the fansite and used by the paper.

- To be on the safe side, I have acknowledged the local paper in the image credits.

Is use of this image in the Billy Fury page fair use and appropriate? RedTomato (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Basically no. There are two issues, first you do not know who the copyright holder of the photo is and because this image still exists you cannot make a non-free claim as it fails the very first requirement per

WP:NFCC#1: replaceability. Someone can go and make a new photo and release it freely. However, secondly, the illustration is an artistic work which under UK law will most likely have a new copyright for the artist, so any photo of the wall with the image is a derivative work that will require the additional licencing from the artist, unless it is a work for hire by the Camden Council, in which case they may own the copyright, if that was part of the contract, and they could release it freely. I think you are out of luck unless you can get a new photo and the artists permission too. Good luck. ww2censor (talk

) 17:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the mural will be copyrighted, period, so any photo's going to be a derivative work. We just need to most "free-est" version of that that we can, meaning that we need someone to take a photo and license that photo freely (acknowledging it as a derivative work, so it will still be non-free) to use it; hence why the free replacement tag. Even then, the image will still be considered non-free still needs to meet

WP:NFCC, and unless the mural itself is the subject of discussion, it likely won't be considered appropriate since we already have an image of Fury, and the existence of the alley/street in his name can be stated by text. (A possible option is to get a free photo of just the sign (the sign would not be copyrightable, but we'd still need the photographer to release that photo in a free manner). --MASEM (t

) 18:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, which I agree with. However, I had a thought: the photo is of a public event, namely the opening of the mural. Press and the public were invited with the intention of freely taking photos and printing / publishing them elsewhere. So if I or someone else asked on the fanwebsite (I am not a member) for someone who took a photo at the press event to release copyright to Wikipedia on their photo, would that meet your criteria? RedTomato (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, because that only gets you over one hurdle, namely the copyright of the photo. You still require permission from the artist because this is a

freely licenced. ww2censor (talk

) 17:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I need to make a template in the style of https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Sobotta's_Anatomy_plates for this book: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015000279177;view=1up;seq=9 at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Grant's_Anatomy_plate What do I state as the reason for the copyright having expired?

I don't believe the copyright has expired. It looks to me like the copyright is still held by the Williams and Wilkins Company, unless there's something I'm missing. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The thing is it has expired, both according to the Hathi-trust and Google, but I guess I need to find the source stating that.

CFCF (talk

) 21:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This was the source that directed me to the book in question. http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/24/1_MeetingAbstracts/827.6

CFCF (talk

) 21:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That source takes a rather simplistic view of copyright especially when talking about non-US books. Grant's Anatomy Atlas is a US publication that first appeared in 1943 but has been reissued in 13 or 14 editions, so, like Quadell, I think the copyright appear to be still in effect despite what you claim. Hathi-trust does not say anything about the copyright status that I can find and I don't know what you are looking at with Google. ww2censor (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Copyright: Public Domain, Google-digitized." from http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015000279177;view=1up;seq=9 with a weblink from there to an explanation of public domain material. It seems to indicate an elapsed copyright due to non-renewal, is that sufficient evidence for it to be added to Wikipedia? Hathitrust is a credible organization, they wouldn't be ones to give out this material for free if the copyright truly hadn't elapsed into public domain.

CFCF (talk

) 23:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Also this is the correct record http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001552530, not the one you linked above. The page is slightly hard to navigate.

CFCF (talk

) 23:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I highly doubt the Hathi Trust claim is correct in saying the book is in the the public domain. There is no statement that the copyright has elapsed copyright due to non-renewal nor that a search has been done. Unfortunately, Google has pulled back many books that were in fact in the public domain, several pre-1923 that are obvious and reduced access to scans of others. You may need to do a copyright renewal search but I think pre-1978 are only available at the LOC unless you know better. You could get in touch with the Hathi Trust and ask them for clarification.ww2censor (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well now, hold the presses. I did a little research, and it looks like you might be right,

CFCF. This book is the 5th edition of An Atlas of Anatomy by J.C. Boileau Grant, published in 1962. The first edition was first published in 1943, in the U.S., and the copyrighted was duly registered with the United States Copyright Office that year. Different editions and printings were made from 1943 to until the present day, but the same copyright law (the Copyright Act of 1909, amended) was in effect between 1943 and 1962. Each copyright only lasted 28 years, and had to be formally renewed in the 28th year after publication (1965 for the first edition), or else the document would irrevocably lapse into the public domain. A new law (the Copyright Act of 1976) took effect in 1978, but as the Hirtle chart

explains, anything published in the U.S. before 1964 still had to have its copyright officially renewed or it would expire.

I have made an exhaustive search for this book in the copyright renewal records listed at Rutgers University, and the version hosted at Stanford, and the copyrights for the versions from 1943 to 1962 were not renewed. The relevant Project Gutenberg catalogs for copyright renewals ([9] and [10], etc.) similarly show no renewals by this author. I can see at the Library of Congress catalog records that the 8th and 9th editions were registered in 1983 and 1991 respectively (registration numbers TX0001078743 and TX0003134705), but that only the new material was subject to new copyright; the original material had passed into the public domain back in 1965, and the last material present in the 5th edition finally passed into the public domain in 1980.

My search has convinced me that the material in this book is all in the public domain. I see that the Google Digitization Team has scanned the pages and made them available, and that both the Hathi Trust and FACEB Journal have independently come to the same conclusion. The material is safe to use, and should be tagged {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Sorry for the earlier confusion. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 00:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Trojan work Quadell. I knew we needed more clarity and you've done it. ww2censor (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely wonderful, thank you so much for your help. I wasn't aware you could get hold of those records from the internet.

Does the same apply to http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015068068348 - Morris' Human anatomy; a complete systematic treatise from 1933? I have a number of these books that I feel can contribute significantly to Wikipedia, and I want to be in the clear.

I'll check. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This book is the 9th edition of Morris' Human Anatomy, published in 1933. The publisher did not renew the copyright to this edition in 1961, and the copyright expired. (Then tenth edition, published in 1942, did have it's copyright renewed in late 1969. But that was the earliest edition whose copyright was renewed. All editions before the tenth are in the public domain, and the ninth is the best and most accurate of these.)

You can tag these as {{PD-US-not renewed}} as well. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful, this is great for

CFCF (talk

) 15:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

-Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasteffl (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Going to the Victory website, I do see the newer logo [11], but I assume you have access to one at a larger size. The easiest thing you can do (and to avoid any conflict of interest) is just point to a URL that has the logo at a larger size, and I or someone else can upload it to meet the image policies here and subsequent replace it in the article. You could arguably do this yourself (via the "Upload file" in the link toolbox on the left), using a non-free commercial logo rationale too. There's a whole other option that involves whether Victory Motorcycles would like the image to be used under a Creative Commons license, which is outlined at

WP:CONSENT, but this is not required to at least fix the logo to the most recent one. --MASEM (t

) 18:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering if the logo even requires that much treatment— inasmuch as the Victory logo appears to consist only of text and simple geometric shapes (as outlined at

WP:LOGO), the image may not be entitled to copyright protection and therefore can be freely uploaded by anyone and used for any purpose (though trademark would, of course, remain firmly in place). In this case, the image could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, the "source" field filled with the URL of the logo, the "author" field filled as "Unknown— not necessary for images in the public domain", and the tags {{PD-textlogo}} {{trademarked}} included in the licensing section. This saves the considerable trouble of having to generate a non-free image use rationale and makes the logo available to other Wikipedias in other languages to use on their sites (otherwise, under non-free use, it will be limited to use on the English-language site only). Is there any argument that the image is specifically entitled to copyright protection? (if so, please provide). KDS4444^Talk

01:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The "lighting" effects on the V to give it three dimensions are sufficient to make it copyrightable compared to pure-text logos (a current example is that the Oreo logo is being deleted from commons for the same concept). So it cannot be uploaded to commons to treat as a free image. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, which is exactly what I was wondering. Thank you! Then it must be brought into Wikipedia (only) under a non-free file policy, which will still do the job, of course, though with a bit more work. Sasteffl, please provide a URL to a somewhat larger version of the logo (though not too large— non-free copyright-protected files cannot exceed certain size parameters) and one of us will be glad to take it from there for you, if you like. KDS4444^Talk 05:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add some images from Flickr, among others these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnystiletto/5484310660/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/indirectheat/6674879767/ but I'm not on the clear as to the copyright. They are both under non-commercial licenses. Is it possible to upload images under that license to Wikipedia?

Unfortunately not. We require images to be

here. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk

) 19:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Having said that, sometimes Flickr account users can be convinced to alter the copyrights of their images to ones suitable for use on Wikipedia if they are contacted directly and asked to do so. I have done this several times and about half the time I am successful. I address the Flickr account user as an editor of the English Wikipedia (which, congratulations, you now are) and explain that you want to use this or that image for the Wikipedia article on this or that subject but you would need the account holder to change the image's copyright status to CC-BY-SA 3.0 in order to do so and would they be willing to consider your request. I have had some Flickr users respond enthusiastically with the idea that their work will become part of Wikipedia! I've had others apologetically decline. But it is certainly worth a shot, especially if the image is a good one and the author not someone already famous and protective of his/ her work. Also, even some of the latter will allow their images to be used if the image quality is reduced (i.e., if they republish the image on Flickr with lower quality and give that new version a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, retaining the full copyright on the original high-quality image). KDS4444^Talk 06:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

My question is regarding the fair use rational for inclusion of the image file:Leibowitz, Samuel & Scottsboro Boys 1932.jpg. I just explained my concern on the image's talk page, but let me reiterate here (this is me quoting me):

I am contacting y'all to get some feedback on that. Can Wikipedia continue to use the image under a fair use rationale? (my guess is "yes"). Does the rationale as currently given actually do that? (my guess is "no"). KDS4444^Talk 12:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, these matters are very subjective (whatever some people may say) so ultimately no advice here will guarantee the keeping or deletion of this photo. The edit summary creating the file description says the image was found here but I am finding it here. See also here. I should ignore the Corbis stuff. They may have no rights to the image and are simply distributing it. It is not especially relevant whether others are claiming fair use. WP needs to decide on this on the merits here. However, prior wide distribution strengthens the WP case. I think there is good evidence Fred Hiroshige took the photo so he (or his employer?) would have originally held the copyright. The negative was later acquired by the Morgan County Archives.[12][13] I can't tell what rights the archive holds. I don't think you need to have certainty about the current copyright holder to allow a non-free image to be used on WP. I think the references I have just given demonstrate it is an important photo. This, and the photo's widespread distribution, make for a good non-free use claim here based on its iconic nature. The present FUR is too detailed, has irrelevant considerations and doesn't meet some technical "requirements" that some people demand. However, it is routinely fixable. I could try but there are people here with more experience than I have. I hope that helps. Thincat (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A note about publication, probably to myself. Earliest copy I can find is 13 September 2002 here from here. Also finding photo credited to UPI and GettyImages! Frequently cited paper here, available here but I don't know if the journal published the photo. Was the photo published at the time? Thincat (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can I take a screenshot of a Wikipedia project page (for instance, the log out page)? In what category does this goes? Thanks! Katastasi (talk

• Yes the license is
  GFDL. The attribution can be the URL you got it from. Graeme Bartlett (talk
  ) 20:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• But you can't take screenshots of article pages that contain non-free images like album covers, film posters, etc. De728631 (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I have in my personal possession a very high quality source of anatomical images in the 1937 edition of Pernkopf Topographische Anatomie, printed in Austria/Germany, as can be found here: http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=eduard+pernkopf&dblist=638&fq=yr%3A1937&qt=facet_yr%3A (I have both Bd. 1 & 2) I am intrigued to know if the copyright on this work is still in effect. This is the first edition, and there have been several reprints afterwards, the latest in 1989 or 1990 if I am correct. I do not ask of you to research the copyright situation for me, but merely direct me to where I can undertake said research/anyone else I can contact or tell me if it is a wholly futile attempt. For this I need detailed info on copyright renewal in Austria and Germany. I'd need to know rather soon as I only have the books in my possession a limited time, and to know whether the hours spent finding a proper scanner and scanning them are worth it.

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm is the Bible everyone refers to. Wikipedia only concerns itself with whether an image is PD in the US. Commons requires PD in the US and country of origin. Subsequent publication is not relevant to the copyright status. The Austrian/German situation is summarised here. Thincat (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, 2015. Might be worth scanning since they are quite rare volumes, and I might not get hold of them again. Only ~93 available in the world. Thanks a bunch for the links.

CFCF (talk

) 14:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't know. 2025? In Austria/Germany (1955 + 70) but, worse, because they were not PD in A/G in 1996 they will not be PD in US (unless there was any publication in US) until 95 years after publication: 2032. I hope I am wrong! Thincat (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually the drawings were not done by Pernkopf himself but by various graphical artists. Pernkopf mentions this in passing on page viii of the preface [14]. So each image has its own copyright and you might have to check the book if there are any individual attributions at all. De728631 (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The images are nearly all individually signed by the artists. On the other hand they also have an overlay with anatomical terms which I am unsure of whether can be attributed to them. The artists I can find are Erich Lepier, Ludwig Schrott, Karl Endtresser and Franz Batke, but according to a source Schrott's father and Batke's wife, contributed some pictures during the atlas's early years

CFCF (talk

) 23:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I've found a picture from a different language Wikipedia article that I want to use on the English Wikipedia, the original is here, I have looked around on the internet for this and can only seem to find it on journals and other sort of sites with no information on the copyright such as [16] it comes from allegedly the Richard Rein - Rasse und Kultur unserer Urväter. Ein methodisch-schultechnisches Hilfsbuch für Unterricht und Vorträge in der Vorgeschichte. 1936. "Race and culture of our ancestors. Methodological manual for school classes and lectures on ancient history." but I can't seem to find this on any official websites. The article in the Russian Wikipedia states that its past its copyright date

"This work is in the public domain because the term of the exclusive rights to it has expired. It was first made ​​public until January 1, 1943 , and its author (if known) died before that date."

So would this acceptable to save, upload and use on Wikipedia?--Windows66 (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually it appears (with Google translate help) the Russian wiki image claims to comes from Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes that was published in 1922 by Hans F. K. Günther who died in 1968. Assuming that the illustrations were made by the author, which we don't actually know, the book is still in copyright in Germany for 70 years pma, but it is in the public domain in the US so uploading to the enwiki would be fine but not to the commons. However, I would like to be sure the details are accurate before uploading, so you might want to look at the copy I found online here which has loads of images that need careful viewing to see if this one is there or maybe it is a composite. BTW it is only black/white. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it does come from that because after a Google search of "bilder deutscher rassen I" it does not appear to come from that book. I looked around and another journal link [17] says that it comes from the "Race and culture of our ancestors. Methodological manual for school classes and lectures on ancient history - Richard Rein. Rasse und Kultur unserer Urväter. Ein methodisch-schultechnisches Hilfsbuch für Unterricht und Vorträge in der Vorgeschichte. 1936. Frankfurt / MS 18).

I'm finding it difficult to actually track the exact whereabouts of this image.

The Günther's works on Google images appear images such as [18]--Windows66 (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

See this comment; I've discovered a site that copied our article without attribution, so I left a note at the talk page saying that our page is not a copyvio. Do we have a template that's meant to convey this fact in a systematic manner? Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are looking for {{

Backwardscopy}}. NtheP (talk

) 11:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the status of the photo that I took of that reliquary yesterday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivemack (talk • contribs)

(Note: The image is File:Relic-of-St-Charles-Lwango.JPG Pseudomonas_(talk) 23:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)}

Has the photo you have taken infringed the copyright of the maker(s) of the reliquary? In the UK it is not an infringement to photograph a work of artistic craftsmanship (even if it is in copyright) if it is permanently on display in a public place.[19] This is not so in many countries of the world. If the reliquary is out of copyright (but you probably don't know this) it is definitely OK. I am sure that the reliquary does count in law as a work of artistic craftsmanship and that it is indeed in a public place (it doesn't matter that you have to pay to get in). Is it on permanent display? I see the exhibition opened in 1955[20] (but this is currently describing it as "new", possibly with new exhibits). However, is the reliquary itself "permanently" on display? I don't think it really matters if it has only fairly recently been put on exhibition (this is my personal opinion) but the intention should be that the display is planned to continue indefinitely. If the display is only temporary you would need to find out the copyright status of the reliquary which may be a thankless task.[21] Sorry this isn't a definite answer! Thincat (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I've got a question concerning copyrights. I found the pictures I want to upload on this page http://www.pbase.com/holopain/educational&page=3 and contacted the owner, which agreed (via e-mail) to my intention to upload them to the corresponding wikipeda site. But now I'm stuck at the upload wizard, where I don't know what evidence I have for the license (the owner said the license is cc-by). Do I have to send his agreement e-mail to the Wikimedia's copyright service to get a OTRS ticket? Or what would be the best way to solve this? Thanks Vsoldati (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you need to forward the email to permissions-enwikimedia.org and it will get picked up there. Upload your image and add {{OTRS pending}} to the page to indicate that you have submitted an email confirming the licence. NtheP (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the text of the

I haven't seen it yet and as many of the news reports I've looked at say "The WHite House has released key points" I suspect that it's not publically available in full yet. NtheP (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The text of the agreement has been posted on Europa and several news websites, but the document does not have anything indicating the licence. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, a bit of digging around on the europa website comes up with this which allows reproduction but not in sufficient terms as to meet WP licencing policies. NtheP (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Reuters has it, [22], as released by the U.S. government and Iran's state Fars news agency. If it were produced by the U.S. Goverment it would clearly be public domain. Tomsv 98 (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The Times of Israel credits the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran for the release. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I want to use some images from the Khmer Wikipedia page ខេត្តព្រះសីហនុ in the corresponding en.WP article. All images uploaded to the Khmer Wikipedia say they are released under the "Creative Commons Attribution / Share-Alike License". Can I import the images I want (this one, for example) from there to Commons for use on en.WP? If so, how do I properly attribute them? Thanks.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 21:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That file has no source or licence, so it can't be used on Wikipedia and shouldn't be on Khmer Wikipedia in the first place. --

Stefan2 (talk

) 23:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I expect that's right although it seems to have a CC statement right at the bottom. Not having a clue about Khmer I have no idea about the source but if the uploader took the photo he/she would merely have to state this. Any image validly licensed with CC-BY-SA can indeed be copied to Commons and used here (if you keep the attribution). However, I see some are "released to the public to be used in Khmer Wikipedia" and that is not a valid licence on Commons (or here – and probably not on Khmer WP either!). However, these also have a CC licence so I don't understand the intention of the photographer. Thincat (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The CC licence at the bottom of the page should be the standard disclaimer for Wikipedia text content that you will also find on this very page. So it's not related to the image. De728631 (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks, all, for the answers.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 01:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

How could it be a problem? Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity-Philippines, Inc. is the rightful owner of the above-cited National Seal under SEC Registration NO.CN200627696 with website www.asp-national-alumni.8m.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manny asp1965 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This comment makes no sense. What is your concern, exactly? KDS4444^Talk 17:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

We take copyright status seriously and need to confirm the claims you made. I presume you are referring to File:The Seal of Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity-Philippines, Inc.jpg that you claim comes from this website but I cannot find that image there. They also have a clear "All right reserved" notice but you also claim to be the author of the crest so the question is who is the copyright owner and have they given permission of the licence you added? We need their permission not that of the person uploading the image unless they are the same person. Without that information we cannot keep the image. ww2censor (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The Government of Nunavut has recently installed several security cameras at our airport. One of the cameras can move and zoom in. It will also allow me to take a snapshot which can be saved to file. Who owns the copyright on the snapshot? I'm assuming that the government does, which would make them useless for Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you able to direct the motion of the camera yourself? Or just to take a snapshot at a lucky moment? You can do that with a security cam?!? Chris857 (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I can tilt, pan and zoom on the one that overlooks the apron. I can then right click and save a snapshot. There are currently 7 cameras all recording 24 hours a day and all can zoom in and save snapshots. Only the one though can tilt and pan. There will be an 8th camera later because nobody thought about having one that would show the front door! CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

My opinion, though only minimally legally informed, is that if you can make creative choice in aligning the camera and choosing to take a snapshot, and there is no restriction by the airport on use of those snapshots, that it should be your copyright and not the airport's. They give you (at least implict) permission to use this camera, so I don't think it matters whether you own it or not. Chris857 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Chris857's analysis on this. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Concur. Ability to direct the camera implies corresponding copyright; mere existence of the camera does not. KDS4444^Talk 17:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all. Now I just need some daylight and I can get some interesting shots. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is not quite as clear, as stated by the above. The Canadian copyright law has this "funny" (as seen from a European perspective at least) concept of "first owner" (article 13). As far as I have been able to google, there is no case specific to this situation, but the examples on w:en:Authorship and ownership in copyright law in Canada#The_first_owner_of_the_copyright_is_usually_the_author does muddy the picture somewhat. Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic is a bit more clear in their statement:

"For digital photography, the author is the owner of the digital camera with the CCD or CMOS chip built in to it."

This would make the Government of Nunavut the owner of the photograph and thus copyright holder :( --Heb (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks that gave me something to make it easier to search and it turns out the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic section is out of date. The

• Yesterday in
  de minimis non curat lex. Many would say that such deleted useful images should be restored. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 06:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The difficulty is here. We act on the absurdity that a firm could copy a photo from here and unlawfully use it as a "principal motif" of for marketing purposes. Hence we may not use it on WP. Thincat (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

non-free content policy but, using your example, there are several free images in the dragon article so there is likely nothing that could justify such an image from Iceland being used. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk

) 16:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. What always strikes me as odd is that we attempt to be strict when it comes to not hosting images which are not available for commercial use, but we are willing to host other images which could also be used unlawfully by outside bodies but for matters other than copyright: for example trademark, personality rights. Thincat (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

One of our disclaimers does state that images that are tagged free are free as per US copyright law (as where the servers are hosted) , reusers of the content have to be aware that WP is not liable for misuse of these images outside of WP space. This is due to large variation in how these additional aspects are controlled in different countries in a manner WP has no control over, compared to the hosting of such images for purposes of educational development on WP's server. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. WMF might have been wise if they had allowed "non-commercial use" images on the basis that reusers should also check for that. To my mind that would still be a "free" encyclopedia. However, they did not. Thincat (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, is that freedom of panorama or freedom of paranoia? The idea that you should ban something because somebody somewhere could illegally misuse your work would apply to virtually everything ever written. I would think all of wikimedia should be shut down immediately by that standard. How does it only apply to pictures of buildings that are taken while standing on public property? Nerfer (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

cant find a right tag for this: File:Omonoiaapoel1984854pirim.jpg

its an image of football fans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laos99 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Who was the photographer? – Quadell ^(talk) 17:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Someone posted this on a forum. It didn't say where the person found the picture. It's an old photo i think its from an old newspaper article since I have seen it before but I'm not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laos99 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if we can't determine who took the photograph or when it was taken, then we can't use the image on Wikipedia. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. I'll try and find a similar one from wikipedia commons to add to the article rather than tht one. Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laos99 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)