| Revision as of 22:28, 23 June 2009 editJezhotwells (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,749 edits →Harold Pinter: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:36, 23 June 2009 edit undoSteve Smith (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,250 edits →Harold Pinter: responseNext edit → | ||
| Line 376: | Line 376: | ||
| ==]== | ==]== | ||
| Hello. I uploaded this image: ] for use in the ] article. Pinter is a deceased playwright. Another editor disputes whether the image satisfies our non-free image policies, while I believe that it does satify the policy. Can anyone here help? Best regards, -- ] (]) 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) | Hello. I uploaded this image: ] for use in the ] article. Pinter is a deceased playwright. Another editor disputes whether the image satisfies our non-free image policies, while I believe that it does satify the policy. Can anyone here help? Best regards, -- ] (]) 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I'd suggest that the rationale should include a better justification of why a picture of him early in his career specifically is needed. Assuming that one is, and assuming it's true that no free images from that period are available (and recognizing that you can't prove a negative), I think this is probably okay. Some of ]'s arguments puzzle me somewhat; he/she does not seem to have a clear understanding of fair use or ] |
:I'd suggest that the rationale should include a better justification of why a picture of him early in his career specifically is needed. Assuming that one is, and assuming it's true that no free images from that period are available (and recognizing that you can't prove a negative), I think this is probably okay. Some of ]'s arguments puzzle me somewhat; he/she does not seem to have a clear understanding of fair use or ], and almost all of her/his arguments seem to be devoted to establishing that the image is under copyright, which seems to have been conceded at the outset. ] (]) 22:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::I don't see a problem with a correct fair use rationale, as this is a length article, it would be good to use in the early life section. I agree that {{userlinks|NYScholar}} arguments are somewhat impenetrable. ] (]) 22:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC) | ::I don't see a problem with a correct fair use rationale, as this is a length article, it would be good to use in the early life section. I agree that {{userlinks|NYScholar}} arguments are somewhat impenetrable. ] (]) 22:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::Well, ] does require that non-free images "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Frankly, I doubt that the use of non-free images solely to illustrate people really complies with the letter of that statement, though it's very well-established practice. But non-free images to illustrate people at different states of their careers? That might be pushing it. But that's also probably a question for ], which is where NYScholar should probably take this if he/she wants it deleted. ] (]) 22:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:36, 23 June 2009
Skip to the bottom
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Misplaced Pages:Questions.
- How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
- On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
- From the page Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
- For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
- For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
- For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
- Type the name of the tag (e.g.;
{{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting{{before and}}after, in the edit box on the image's description page. - Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example,
{{untagged}}) - Hit Publish changes.
- If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
- How to ask a question
- To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
- Please sign your question by typing
~~~~at the end. - Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
- Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
- Note for those replying to posted questions
If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
 | If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: ]. (Please note the ":" just before the word File) Thanks! |
| Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) |
|---|
 Archives | ||||
|
||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Media copyright questions page. |
|
User:Jeffmeck22
Hi is there any way some one could fix these images for me, I am not sure what to do. thanks!! and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmeck22 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, we can't do it for you. You have to write on the userpage where you found the images - we can't read your mind! If you got them from a website specify the URL and if you took them yourself please write that. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Paul.Dirac.monument.jpg
I think File:Paul.Dirac.monument.jpg is correctly identified, don't you? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Identification is only one part of what is necessary for the file to remain here. File:Niels.Bohr.monument.jpg is an identical image also uploaded by you and the same information is missing from both which is clearly requested in the file details; "Who created this image?, Who holds the copyright to this image? and Where did this image come from?" One will certainly need to be deleted and you can post the following template {{db|G7}} into the file to be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Peak Maths created the image. There is no copyright, since it has been release with a Creative Commons license, and it came from Flikr.com, which you can verify by going to http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=paul%20dirac&w=all. I will copy and paste this info onto the WP page involved. I've put in a request for speedy removal of the erroneously named image per your suggestion. I hope this is now satisfactory. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Audio Copyright Question, Possibly mistagged by bot, or I just messed up
I uploaded this file File:Dave Niehaus Winning Call 1995 AL Division Series.ogg, and I think I made it pretty clear who owns the copyright to the audio file, but the bot ImageTaggingBot marked it as missing information, maybe I put it in the wrong field or I am missing a required field. Some help is greatly appreciated, I've never uploaded an audio file before so maybe I just forgot something. --Gold Man60 Talk 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- It looks to me like the description is fine. I've removed the problem tag, and I'll keep it on my watchlist. – Quadell 12:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I found out that the bot in question was acting up yesterday. The bot operator shut down the bot as soon as he was notified; he has since fixed the error and started the bot up again. Anyway, there was never a problem with this image. – Quadell 18:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help --Gold Man60 Talk 21:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
For Stifle
Stifle. Recently you pot-shotted an old FU image I uploaded to Misplaced Pages ages ago, File:CherryCokeBottle.jpg. Fortunately, it was fixed by the good man User:Seo75 who was kind enough to spend a few moments of his day fixing things rather than bandying about threats of deletion. My message left for him is here User_talk:Seo75#Thanks. I do hope that you read it and consider for a moment refocusing your tact towards something closer to what he has done; i.e. spending a modicum of effort updating FU content with proper FU rationale rather than being a negative nellie and lazily threatening deletes. Thanks.--Jeff (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have a question for the group? – Quadell 00:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- More of a statement, really. However, if forced to rephrase my statement in the form of a question, I might say, "Why isn't there more of an effort to correct FU rationale on existing images rather than threatening to delete them? Does not this sort of action not betray a tendency towards destruction rather than construction?"--Jeff (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Here is a test for you, Jeff. Please honestly consider trying it out. Hopefully this will give you perspective. Go to Category:Misplaced Pages files with no non-free use rationale. Spend an hour, or even 30 minutes straight working on fixing those images. Please report back on how many you were able to do, and if you'd want to do that every day. It is not anyone's job to fix broken images. However, non-free image compliance isn't optional. Please consider the number of problematic images on Misplaced Pages (and how many are uploaded daily) versus the number of admins active in this department. We issue warnings to the uploaders and alert the page where the images are used, so those with vested interest in the images have the option and time (due to the waiting period) to fix those images. The system isn't perfect, but it works fairly well. This image seems to be a clear case where the problematic nature of the image was identified, and then addressed by a community member. I don't see where the problem is. You are asking someone who volunteers their time to clean up this site (and often dirty and thankless task) to do more free work? Seriously, take an hour out of your day, every day, going through the images speedy deletion categories and start fixing them yourself. Easier said than done.-Andrew c 01:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Andrew, your response is valid and I appreciate that point of view. My response may be that I think I would rather see a dedicated volunteer spend the time it takes tagging 5 images for deletion instead fixing just one. Moreover, my response may also include the idea that Misplaced Pages and all of the people who do volunteer their time towards this effort are unfairly burdened by the idealistic and misguided crusade towards fully "libre" content, rather than the sensible and logical utilization of fair-use. I have always tended towards strengthening fair use on WP because it assists the end goal of creating a great encyclopedia. This is a battle I was involved in back a few years ago in '06-07 and that is for sure a battle lost. I feel the current atitude prevailed because the nature of the argument in this Utopian, drama filled society of Misplaced Pages is inherently tilted towards those with a more idealistic bent than that of a practical bent. Those more emotionally invested in an idea will tend to win in the end because they will also be the people who stick around and support an idea to the bitter end. That's the kind of viewpoint that "wins" on Misplaced Pages; a persistent, relentless unyielding effort.. the kind of effort pragmatists, capitalists and that sort of people just don't have time for. In the end, though, I'm not asking for more work out of the "taggers", rather, a different sort of the same work, perhaps more focused and more constructive than destructive. After all, if the image is deleted out of hand after a certain period of time of no one fixing it, it merely re-creates the work to re-upload and then once again properly retag it. Know what I mean? There seems to be, in total over the long run, more work created for a lower quality greater goal. I might suggest that if people want to run about tagging images rather than fixing them, the tag may be one that says "Hey someone who likes fixing stuff, this needs to be fixed", rather than a threat for and inevitable deletion when not fixed. --Jeff (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) While this discussion might be better placed at WT:NFC another issue to consider about images with copyright problems is where the burden of proof lies. It is with the uploader (or even on those interested in the page where the image is placed) and not on those who see the problems. This may not be very constructive and while an occasional easy fix may be possible, but Andrew c has indicated just one problem involved in making fixes. ww2censor (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Andrew, your response is valid and I appreciate that point of view. My response may be that I think I would rather see a dedicated volunteer spend the time it takes tagging 5 images for deletion instead fixing just one. Moreover, my response may also include the idea that Misplaced Pages and all of the people who do volunteer their time towards this effort are unfairly burdened by the idealistic and misguided crusade towards fully "libre" content, rather than the sensible and logical utilization of fair-use. I have always tended towards strengthening fair use on WP because it assists the end goal of creating a great encyclopedia. This is a battle I was involved in back a few years ago in '06-07 and that is for sure a battle lost. I feel the current atitude prevailed because the nature of the argument in this Utopian, drama filled society of Misplaced Pages is inherently tilted towards those with a more idealistic bent than that of a practical bent. Those more emotionally invested in an idea will tend to win in the end because they will also be the people who stick around and support an idea to the bitter end. That's the kind of viewpoint that "wins" on Misplaced Pages; a persistent, relentless unyielding effort.. the kind of effort pragmatists, capitalists and that sort of people just don't have time for. In the end, though, I'm not asking for more work out of the "taggers", rather, a different sort of the same work, perhaps more focused and more constructive than destructive. After all, if the image is deleted out of hand after a certain period of time of no one fixing it, it merely re-creates the work to re-upload and then once again properly retag it. Know what I mean? There seems to be, in total over the long run, more work created for a lower quality greater goal. I might suggest that if people want to run about tagging images rather than fixing them, the tag may be one that says "Hey someone who likes fixing stuff, this needs to be fixed", rather than a threat for and inevitable deletion when not fixed. --Jeff (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Here is a test for you, Jeff. Please honestly consider trying it out. Hopefully this will give you perspective. Go to Category:Misplaced Pages files with no non-free use rationale. Spend an hour, or even 30 minutes straight working on fixing those images. Please report back on how many you were able to do, and if you'd want to do that every day. It is not anyone's job to fix broken images. However, non-free image compliance isn't optional. Please consider the number of problematic images on Misplaced Pages (and how many are uploaded daily) versus the number of admins active in this department. We issue warnings to the uploaders and alert the page where the images are used, so those with vested interest in the images have the option and time (due to the waiting period) to fix those images. The system isn't perfect, but it works fairly well. This image seems to be a clear case where the problematic nature of the image was identified, and then addressed by a community member. I don't see where the problem is. You are asking someone who volunteers their time to clean up this site (and often dirty and thankless task) to do more free work? Seriously, take an hour out of your day, every day, going through the images speedy deletion categories and start fixing them yourself. Easier said than done.-Andrew c 01:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- More of a statement, really. However, if forced to rephrase my statement in the form of a question, I might say, "Why isn't there more of an effort to correct FU rationale on existing images rather than threatening to delete them? Does not this sort of action not betray a tendency towards destruction rather than construction?"--Jeff (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
On the one hand, those who upload images get angry that someone threatens to delete them over seeming trivialities, instead of offering to fix the problems. On the other hand, those of us who work hard to keep Misplaced Pages free of copyright errors get frustrated with people who upload dodgy images and who won't follow clear instructions. Snide accusations are common, and we tire of them quickly. It seems like the choice is to either clean up after uploaders (an uphill battle which we don't have the manpower to keep up with), tag images for deletion and hope the uploaders fix them (a thankless task, guaranteed to earn you complaints like the one at the top of this section), or else give up and allow Misplaced Pages to be a haven for rampant copyright violations (and eventually get shut down for it). We copyvio cleaners need to do better at being polite, and we need to be willing to explain things over and over to many indignant uploaders each day... but you uploaders, please, give us the benefit of the doubt. We're only trying to keep Misplaced Pages running. Sarcasm and accusations just make it unpleasant for everyone. – Quadell 12:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, the use of this photo is not in compliance with[REDACTED] policies (replaceable nonfree image) and I've nominated it for deletion. Changing the rationale can't save an image that is impermissible to begin with. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Image bot-nominated for deletion despite having source info
File:Jean-Claude_Forest.gif is an image that has been tagged by a bot for deletion. However,I believe there has to be some error, for I have uploaded the Non-free use media rationale for the image (which superfluous as to say, contains the source information) long before the bot tagged it. Thanks. --Roaring Siren (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- You are correct, there is nothing wrong with this image. The bot in question was acting up yesterday, and tagged some images (such as this one) that should not have been tagged. The bot operator shut down the bot as soon as he was notified; he has since fixed the error and started the bot up again. – Quadell 18:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
How will recover my copyright?
I am in a permanent block in ruwiki. On the personal pages in enwiki write the rough copies of articles about mountain-skiers and about the hero of Russia. When will find a help for translation of these articles into English language, then will carry them in basic space of enwiki.
An anonymous user published some of my rough copies in the ruwiki. In description to the first corrections such pointers were done to the my rough copies: «Author and license here: User:Udacha/Кедрин, Максим Николаевич, User:Udacha/Кедрина, Анастасия Николаевна, User:Udacha/Кедрина, Людмила Владимировна, User:Udacha/Artsybycheva, User:Udacha/Макеев, Владимир Иванович, User:Udacha/Перец». Such requirement of license GFDL.
Discovered today, that all these first corrections are remote: , , , , , . My authorship is hidden from readers.
I suppose, that users which in a block, must not be deprived their copyrights.
I ask for a help from authoritative users.
Thank you. Участница Udacha (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC).
- I would suggest e-mailing info-ru@wikimedia.org, and explaining the problem to them (in Russian). They should be able to make sure that the requirements of the GFDL/CC-by-SA are met. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- An appeal resulted in the delete of all this articles in ruwiki. Despite Constitution. I went to cry. Участница Udacha (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Cosmo-2008-434.JPG
Can you help resolve "candidate for speedy deletion" for this image. I have responded to the Administrator's request, however he hasn't responded back. Thus, I am unsure what to do next. Below is a copy of my latest inquiry.
File:Cosmo-2008-434.JPG - Speedy Deletion
Below is communication regarding the subject image as noted on my talk page. I believe I have complied with the appropriate requirements, however as I am new I would appreciate any additional help to remove the speedy deletion tag from this photo.
"Thanks for uploading File:Cosmo-2008-434.JPG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator. To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. For more information on using images, see the following pages: Misplaced Pages:Image use policy Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've forwarded an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the full chain of GFDL request and the image owner's approval. The image owner is noted on the photo as http://hazaidivat.hu/ with the chief editor (Szilvia Darnyik) listed as creator and author. If there is a more appropriate email address to forward the hazaidivat.hu's approval please let me know. Please let me know if I've made the appropriate description changes. Thanks Pete Rogers NYC (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)" Thank you Pete Rogers NYC (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
ThanksPete Rogers NYC (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed the deletion tag and replaced it with {{OTRS pending}} - that should do it for now. – ukexpat (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- The following is the exact image source. I have also added this to the photo and will re-email the same to permissions. The photo is still marked on the Orsi Kocsis article as a candidate for speedy deletion. Is there a reason for this despite your change on the Image page? Exact source: http://kepek.hazaidivat.hu/Fehernemu-es-furdoruha-bemutato/2008/04-17-Cosmopolitan-Bikinishow-2008-VAM-Design/Cosmo-2008-434_Lg.jpg.111.html. ThanksPete Rogers NYC (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed the {{deletable image-caption}} template from the image caption in the article. – ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Will usage of this image be acceptable on Misplaced Pages ?
I thought it'd be better to seek expert opinion here before uploading an image to illustrate the 2009 Lahore Police Academy Attack article which does not have an image attached to it. As this event is a past-event, wouldn't it qualify under the 'historically significant image' ?. The image which I propose should be uploaded can be found at this link copyright AFP and found on the BBC Website. --Roaring Siren (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I very much doubt it, it is clearly a copyright image and I doubt that it meets the definition of "historically significant". – ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
image licensing
How would one license an image available under the license of Attribution-ShareAlike? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moolowdy76 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Add {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to the image description page. – Quadell 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Acceptable/not-acceptable images
File:Orthodox word 242-243.jpg is tagged for deletion. I see, however that images such as File:Hattersballposter.jpg are acceptable. Isn't it possible to use the same policy in the first case also? Kpant (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- The question is the nature of the use of the image File:Orthodox word 242-243.jpg in the article Jovan Vraniškovski. If it is a notable fact about Vraniškovski that he has appeared on the cover of Orthodox Word magazine, then the use of the image is non-free image is justified. However, since the magazine is not mentioned anywhere in the text of Vraniškovski's article (and has no article of its own), it seems likely that his appearance there is not a notable fact about him, and that the image is being used simply as a picture of Vraniškovski. In that case, the image use fails the NFCC and the image should be deleted. Algebraist 16:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- The first image is clearly not acceptable because it is using a non-free image (magazine cover) for the purpose of illustrating a living person. Fails NFCC #1, as nearly all non-free images of living people who are public figures could plausibly be recreated or obtained under a free-license. The second image isn't entirely comparable because it isn't being used to illustrate what the individual looks like. That said, I'm also not entirely clear how that image is being used appropriately in that article, and would suggest removing it as well... -Andrew c 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Orthodox word 242-243.jpg is used to illustrate the person on the cover— it is presumed to be copyrighted by the magazine and is a non-free image. Since Vraniškovski is a living person, there is every expectation that a free image would be available. Bottom line: we cannot use non-free images of living persons. Hattersballposter.jpg is a poster and irreplaceable, and may be used if there is significant related content in the article Les Claypool; such content is very weak, thus the article should be expanded or the image deleted. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) 16:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all the answers! Ok, the purpose of using that picture is showing that Arch. Jovan Vraniskovski appeared on the cover of "Orthodox Word" with the title "21 Century Confessor" - since the article deals with persecution targeted against him, this is a notable evidence. "Orthodox Word" hold no copyright for the image, since that is an official image of the Arch. Jovan. And there is a reference to the magazine article. Kpant (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion continues at File talk:Orthodox word 242-243.jpg, please add your input there. Thanks. Kpant (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Verifying CC license from flickr on Misplaced Pages?
I asked earlier about CC-BY/SA images of copyrighted 3D art, but I realized there's no bot on Misplaced Pages like on common to verify the CC license. Is there some other way to get the license verified on here? Thank you, Siawase (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Any reason you're not uploading them direct to Commons? /wangi (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, they're photographs of copyrighted 3D art (dolls/toys) so they wouldn't be suitable for commons, even though the images themselves are under a CC (BY/SA) license. I'll be using them here under a claim of fair use. Siawase (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I was going to recommend you use WebCite to document the Flickr page, but they seem to be down at the moment. Perhaps BackupURL will do it for you? – Quadell 20:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, I tried it, and this URL is now a backup copy of this free Flickr image, certifying that it was cc-by on 6/17/2009. – Quadell 20:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh thank you! That's a great workaround type idea. I'll do that. Siawase (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Maps based on other maps
User:Passportguy and I have been having a lengthy disagreement at his and my talk pages. The discussion mostly concerns the images nominated for deletion here and at the entry directly below it. We both agree that the uploader, User:Neo_^, probably started with a map created by the UK or Cyprus governments, and recreated his own map using this data, changing line thicknesses, colors, typefaces, and other stylistic choices. I maintain that only the factual information from the original map is preserved, and therefore our map is not a copyright violation. He believes that our map is a derivative work. Could someone knowledgeable in U.S. copyright law comment, either here or at the image deletion nominations? Thanks, – Quadell 17:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- If indeed the maps were copied or traced from a copyrighted original then they will be copyright violations. Might be useful to read-up on how OpenStreetMap address this concern: Thanks/wangi (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Quadell that data and facts as such is not copyrightable. This means that any map on the same subject will have inherent similarities. However a quick comparisson of other online maps of Cyprus shows that despite of these similarities the actual design of maps varies significantly, ss the major recognizable feature of a map lies in its design and style, not in its factual representation. In this specific case the style and design of the maps were copied to an extent where it clearly breaches copyright. The map created has been edited to change some colours and some features like place names and altitude indications, however substantial amounts of the original map design have been copied 1:1. And that is not permissiable under copyright law. Passportguy (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's the crux of the disagreement. Compare and . The maps are obviously similar and contain much of the same factual content. But I do not see any creative copyrightable content copied. Passportguy does. What do other people think? I'm especially interested to hear from those who have a solid understanding of the way U.S. copyright law is applied. – Quadell 20:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Quadell that data and facts as such is not copyrightable. This means that any map on the same subject will have inherent similarities. However a quick comparisson of other online maps of Cyprus shows that despite of these similarities the actual design of maps varies significantly, ss the major recognizable feature of a map lies in its design and style, not in its factual representation. In this specific case the style and design of the maps were copied to an extent where it clearly breaches copyright. The map created has been edited to change some colours and some features like place names and altitude indications, however substantial amounts of the original map design have been copied 1:1. And that is not permissiable under copyright law. Passportguy (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/Articles/Jurimetrics1995.html /wangi (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- As I said earlier, examples of copyrightable design would include : the yellow dots denoting settlements, the exact size and form of green areas, rivers, roads, and built up areas etc. Essentially everything that leads us to realize that the maps are so similar. All of these are not a a statement of fact - such as the pure location of a town would be - but of matter of design and style. Passportguy (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- What a great link, Wangi! Thanks! (From the link: "It would not help the creators of barebones maps very much to add 'creative' features of style or color to their maps, because even if the features are sufficiently creative to qualify the map for copyright, the scope of protection under Feist will cover only the unnecessary and perhaps unwanted features. The factual information concerning the relative locations of geographic features could be freely taken, even by tracing (as long as the protected features are avoided). The absence of meaningful copyright protection means no legal protection for these kinds of works at all".) – Quadell 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- XComment : Absolutely right . But the original map in this case it not as "barebone map. And btw : The quote you refer to prevents the editor (which in this case would be Neo) adding only insignificant features to an uncopyrighted map from claiming copyright - not the other way around ! Passportguy (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
We still need some help with this. – Quadell 01:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Citing image sources
I took the picture of the 47th street CTA red line station myself. File:47th_CTA.JPG A copy also exists on my Flickr page. It is the same image. How do I properly cite my sources to avoid my images being flagged for deletion in the future?
--Zol87 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- That is very easy. If you are the original uploader at flickr, you can change the licence there to a "Attribution-ShareAlike License" allowing commercial use. If you do that, there will be no problem with uploading the image to either Misplaced Pages or Commons. Passportguy (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank You
Geogratis Licence and NRCan.gc.ca
Are the Geogratis Licence Agreement for Unrestricted Use of Digital Data and the general Natural Resources Canada Copyright / Permission to Reproduce for Commercial and non-commercial Reproduction compatible with the needs of Misplaced Pages? I am of the opinion that they are. Dubious20 (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Probably: --NE2 04:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. It seems that the {{GeoGratis}} template will fit the bill.Dubious20 (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Individual creation or a direct derivative?
I made this image in Inkscape about a year ago, taking a picture in my pharmacology book (Rang, H. P. (2003). Pharmacology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. Page 223) as a source. The colors, arrows, cell morphologies and box formats are all different, and frankly the original source looks much better, since I was pretty new to Inkscape at the time. Still, the overall layout is basically the same, so could this be regarded as a copyvio, and what could the general consensus here be regarding having it in the project? After all, it does much good to the world of free knowledge. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- That image seems to have problems, and it shows up as a broken icon to me... but the png version is visible here. As with all copyrights, the factual data is free to copy, but the creative content (design, arrangement, and stylistic decisions) are restricted. I'm hampered in making a determination by two handicaps: I don't have access to the original image, and I don't know anything about lymphocyte activation. But I can tell you what the guiding principles should be. Any elements of the image that are dictated by factual reality (dividing into "cellular" and "humoral", showing the progression from Th1 to MT) are free to copy. Any elements that are obvious or standard in diagrams (showing progress from left to right, displaying units as circles) are free to copy. But stylistic decisions (showing one kind of arrow as green and another kind as black, choosing to display antibodies diagramatically and the cell visually) may be protected. Selection (showing which elements to display when choices are made) may be protected. Arrangement, when not trivial, may be protected. I hope this helps, – Quadell 12:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, it made it more clear to me. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
File:ReshevskyChild.jpg
Is fair use neccesary? Can anybody figure out if the photo was published already in 1922? In that case, we could use the PD-1923 template. Nils Emil (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know. TinEye only finds , which gives no information. The New York Times apparently did not publish any articles containing the word "Reshevsky" before 1923. Do you have access to "This Crazy World of Chess" by Larry Evans? (Neither Amazon nor Google Books let you preview it.) It should credit the photographer and the date somewhere in the book, if the image is copyrighted. – Quadell 13:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
File:FeisalPartyAtVersaillesCopy.jpg
File:FeisalPartyAtVersaillesCopy.jpg This is a photo taken at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. It was uploaded with the public domain template, and someone subsequently noticed the photo had appeared online with an attribution of "LTA". That was a book titled "Life And Times of Abdullah" that was published in 1982. It was not the source of the photo. For some reason OrphanBot is removing it from articles for lack of copyright info. That is sort of unsurprising in the case of a PD image with an expired term of copyright.
I've put a note of explanation on the file page. Is there anything else that needs to be done, before the image links can be restored in the original articles? harlan (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's fine now. I've added an additional copyright template. Feel free to use it in articles. – Quadell 14:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Help regarding copyright
I would really appreciate it if someone would clear a something for me which I don't understand. Recently, some pictures I had uploaded were deleted from[REDACTED] on the grounds that might have been scanned from a newspaper. I have in my possession the original photographs also. So, if I uploaded the original images then would that be ok? The only reason I had uploaded the previous images was because they had captions on them.
Secondly, the pictures that I uploaded were of a former minister from the Balochistan Province of Pakistan. The pictures were not copyrighted because at the time that they were taken there wasn't any awareness in this province (and even most of the country) about copyright laws. These pictures were given to me by the said minister's daughter to upload on[REDACTED] (since the person in the pictures, himself, is deceased). So, since the pictures aren't copyrighted, what tag should I attach with them when I upload them?
Your Help will be much appreciated.Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoriouskm (talk • contribs) 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Greetings, and thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. I believe you're probably referring to File:Mir Gul Khan With habib Jalib.jpg and File:Mir Gul Khan.jpg, which were deleted after a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 June 10. As you know, we have to take copyright very seriously on Misplaced Pages. Pakistan has had copyright laws in effect since before independence, even if they weren't very well understood or enforced in the past. Since Mir Gul Khan Naseer was in office in 1972-73, these photographs were probably created around that time. According to Pakistan's Copyright Ordinance of 1962, all photographs are copyrighted for 50 years after their publication, so these would still be under copyright. But if the photographer is willing to release them under a free license, we can use them. Do you know who the photographer was in these photographs? All the best, – Quadell 17:39, 18 June 2009
(UTC)
I don't know about the photographer of File:Mir Gul Khan.jpg as it is a portrait photo taken in a studio, but the File:Mir Gul Khan With habib Jalib.jpg was taken by Mir Gul Khan Naseer's nephew.
Imperial War Museum
Hi folks, quick question for you. I think I might know the answer but just wanna make sure before I do anything in case I'm wrong. The Imperial War Museum have a massive collection of images and I'm particularly interested in uploading this one from WWII. I've seen a lot of IWM images on wiki, typically with the UK government public domain tag (for instance here at File:HMS Stonehenge.jpg. Would I need to contact IWM first, and how do I select this tag on the image upload page? Sorry for the questions, I can normally work most wiki stuff out but find this one a little tricky - plus I wanna be totally legal! Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- That image seems to come squarely under {{PD-UKGov}}: it's a photograph created by the government before 1957. Algebraist 21:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Algebraist. Does that mean I can just use the image on that link, as long as I supply a link to it from the new uploaded images's page? Ranger Steve (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right. Just specify the source, and you can use the image in articles. – Quadell 22:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Algebraist. Does that mean I can just use the image on that link, as long as I supply a link to it from the new uploaded images's page? Ranger Steve (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much guys Ranger Steve (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Kim Warnick
My name is Kim Warnick. I played in a band called The Fastbacks. You currently have a page about me. I would like to change the photo. How do I that? That photo is terrible.
kw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.201.95 (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you have a photo which anyone can use for anything, you can upload it to Commons. Before you go to upload, be sure you know which license permits anyone to use it for anything. Note that a professional photographer usually will not license a photo that way. If it is not a photo you took yourself, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle the permission. After you have upload your image, you can edit the article to use your image. —teb728 t c 05:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
what???
all my pictures are from wikicomons but[REDACTED] tells me I qualified for speedy deletion, why? the picture:http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Cincy_montage_part_2.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmeck22 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- The images that you blatantly pulled from google are obvious copyright violations. The montage images do not specify the source. If you got the images from commons, then just put the links where you got the images from under the description. The problem is as the image is now, there is no way to tell where you got the images from.--Terrillja talk 03:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- The skyline photo is licensed {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}; you violated that license by failing to give the attribution and by failing to include the share-alike condition on your license. The bridge photo is licensed {{GFDL}}; you violated that license by failing to list the author(s) and by failing to license your derivative under GFDL. The fountain and stadium photos are in the public domain; so the authors may not have a rights to them, but Misplaced Pages still requires you to give the sources of all images. —teb728 t c 05:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Will usage of this image be acceptable on Misplaced Pages ?
I've asked this before, but I just wanted to seek some more opinion : I thought it'd be better to seek expert opinion here before uploading any image to illustrate the 2009 Lahore Police Academy Attack article which does not have an image attached to it. As this event is a past-event, wouldn't it qualify under the 'historically significant image' ?. The image which I propose should be uploaded can be found at this link copyright AFP and found on the BBC Website. --Roaring Siren (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- There's a difference between a historically significant image, and an image of a historically significant event, which is what this image seems to be. I doubt this image would pass criterion 8 of WP:NFCC. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- This image is also impermissible because it violates WP:NFCC criterion 2. AFP makes money by licensing their image, so our using it for free is basically replacing its original market role. For this reason, most recent photos by news agencies are not usable on wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Freedom of Information Act
What is the tag I should use/Wikipedia policy for adding documents released in Texas (not by the US Government) under the Freedom of Inforamtion Act or the State of Texas Freedom of Information Act? Txaggie2011 (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Are the documents free? Perhaps they are available only for fair use or for personal study. Sv1xv (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Most Texas government documents are going to be copyrighted, and so can't be hosted here. – Quadell 02:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Txaggie2011, a document released under a state's FOIA does not mean that the state has released the copyright into the public domain. Those are two different things. — Walloon (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair use? Can this be recreated?
The image File:ElectricSineWave.jpg has been tagged as copyright and unusable. I was wondering a few things.
1) This is a photograph of a machine displaying results of the voltage over time of a household outlet. Given how generic the image is, would it not be acceptable as an image with no copyright? The image isn't a creative expression in any way, and if the same numbers were put into any oscillioscope, the result would be an identical image.
2) The image was published by a not for profit research group. Is any exceptions given here?
3) If the image is indeed copyright and I cannot get permission to use it, can I recreate the image? Can I trace it? Can I make it from scratch to show the same general information? Or would all of this make it original research or unverified? This image is significant to its article in that it quickly provides a visual example of what is being explained, so is it possible to make a recreation that isn't copyright, and isn't original research?
Thanks. -- Floydian γ 21:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- For (2), no, that doesn't make a difference. As for (1), well, maybe, but we tend to err on the side of caution here. The same numbers in a different oscillioscope wouldn't show the same color or resolution, and it certainly wouldn't show the same words at the same locations in the same typeface. Probably none of this is copyrightable, but it can be easily recreated, so why push our luck? Which brings me to (3). The "data" is not eligible for copyright, so tracing should be fine. Only the "creative content" is eligible for copyright, which as I said before might possibly include colors and word placement etc. – Quadell 02:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- The image currently doesn't have a license tag on it. I've tagged it as such.--Rockfang (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Valid licensing?
File:K-metal cover.jpg is licensed using {{cc-by-2.0}}.
Essentially, this is either a fan created image from scratch or a recreation/restoration of a cover. The sourcing leads back to what bills itself as a "partial restoration of an unpublished twenty-six page Superman comic-book story" .
I'm not sure the CC route is appropriate here.
- J Greb (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, it looks very much as thought the copyright for the image belongs to the estate of Jerry Siegel. Unless they're the ones who released it under the Creative Commons license, it's not so-licensed. Have you contacted the uploader for clarification? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've tagged it with {{bsr}} in hopes to bet a better link source.--Rockfang (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've tagged it with missing evidence of permission.--Rockfang (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'll just keep talking to myself. ;) The image shows evidence of permission, so I removed the speedy delete tag.--Rockfang (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
:File:Not-all-dogs-go-to-heaven.png
An editor replaced one copyright image uploaded by a different user under this name File:Not-all-dogs-go-to-heaven.png with another copyright image of the same name, but did not update any of the licensing and usage parameters. I have left a notification at the new uploader and placed a generic message of my concern on the file page, but do not know what should happen next to get issues resolved. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted. – Quadell 15:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
creating PD images based on copyrighted ones
Can someone produce a GFDL or PD licensed portrait from using copyrighted images? Basically would it be legal for a wikipedian to create a GFDL or PD portrait for a deceased person if they base it on various copyrighted portraits wihtout infringement? The argument is that the images themselves are copyrighted but the person's face or body features aren't. So if we create a portrait that isn't exactly the same pose as those found in copyrighted images but still portray the person. For background see Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Official_portraits_of_Philippine_presidents_up_for_deletion_.28again.29--Lenticel 15:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hypothetically, yes, it's possible. In practice, it would be extremely unlikely to do so without introducing guesswork, inaccuracies, and original research. I would hate to see articles routinely host amateur portraits of deceased figures when no free photo can be found or created. It would become a laughing-stock quite quickly, I think. – Quadell 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) The measure is whether the creative elements are all original. In principle, I would say that it's certainly possible to create a portrait from other portraits without it being a derivative work, especially if it's based on multiple portraits (making it less likely that any of the creative elements are being unconsciously copied), but care should certainly be taken. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- So in theory we could find artistic wikipedians who could
wasteutilize their talents in creating the free images but they should be skillful enough to create a non-derivate work. Thanks for the info guys. But, if you don't mind, I'll let this thread open for a little while since we still don't know what the US copyright laws says about this.--Lenticel 15:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)- That's about right. Also note that it's likely to be easier to create non-derivative works from photographic portraits than from drawn or painted ones, since, though photographs are unquestionably creative works, their creativity generally doesn't extend to the depiction of facial features and the like, over which the photographer has little control, while the creativity of a drawn or painted portrait might. As well, what is it you're unclear on about American copyright law? I thought we explained the relevant points quite well above. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think you handled the question quite well but I think other editors' opinions won't hurt. Besides, I'm thinking of convincing the Philippine wikiproject about mass replacement of any fair-use Philippine portraits uploaded in the wiki with PD or GFDL friendly ones so I think I need all the arguments that I can get to convince them. I'm also unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the US copyright law but I think that's the one we're using since the Misplaced Pages servers are housed in the US so some info about that would be useful for me personally as well. --Lenticel 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, more opinions never hurt. However, the only relevant in or out of American copyright law (which is indeed what's used for images hosted on Misplaced Pages; for images hosted on Commons it's both American copyright law and the copyright law of the source country) is that creative expression is copyrighted, and if you produce a work that incorporates somebody else's creative expression than you do not have full ownership of the resulting work. There's not really much more to be said on the subject. Also, note that there are dimensions other than copyright law to consider: as noted above by Quadell, these include the prohibition on original research (which is laxer where images are concerned) and issues of quality. But indeed, let's leave this open and see what others have to say. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think you handled the question quite well but I think other editors' opinions won't hurt. Besides, I'm thinking of convincing the Philippine wikiproject about mass replacement of any fair-use Philippine portraits uploaded in the wiki with PD or GFDL friendly ones so I think I need all the arguments that I can get to convince them. I'm also unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the US copyright law but I think that's the one we're using since the Misplaced Pages servers are housed in the US so some info about that would be useful for me personally as well. --Lenticel 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's about right. Also note that it's likely to be easier to create non-derivative works from photographic portraits than from drawn or painted ones, since, though photographs are unquestionably creative works, their creativity generally doesn't extend to the depiction of facial features and the like, over which the photographer has little control, while the creativity of a drawn or painted portrait might. As well, what is it you're unclear on about American copyright law? I thought we explained the relevant points quite well above. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- So in theory we could find artistic wikipedians who could
- Basically, if someone can look at an illustration and a series of photos of the subject and accurately pick which one of those photos the illustration is based on then that illustration is derivative of the original copyrighted photo and not public domain/elligible for GFDL. In real world terms that means this really isn't a practical option. DreamGuy (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Passports
I was looking through a gallery of passport covers and noticed that whilst some have a specific license for government products (Examples: USA passport (free) and British passport (not free)) almost all of the images are tagged as being released into the public domain by the uploader (Examples: File:Eesti pass.jpg, File:Is vegabréf.jpg, File:Hungarian passport.jpg, File:Cover of HKSAR e-Passport.jpg. A lot are on Commons, some are not. Is this the correct way to license such images? Are the covers in the publics domain and if they are - given the lack of creativity on the part of the scanner/photographer - is the uploader release tag appropriate? 16:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's a common mistake people make. If they really are public domain it has nothing to do with the uploader's wishes. Those should all be changed and the uploaders should get a friendly note on their talk pages explaining the situation. DreamGuy (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Individual uploaders cannot claim copyright and give a free licence on any passport but this is an interesting issue because this British passport Commons:File:British passport 2002.jpg (on the commons), very similar to the one mentioned above, is up for deletion. However, on the basis of the same issue with an Irish passport commons:File:Eirepas.JPG that I challenged the free licence of but was shot down at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eirepas.JPG because part was ineligible and part, the harp logo, was free having been in use for more than 50 years, I would say exactly the same applies to the British passport. IMHO, crown copyright applies to the royal cypher design for only 50 years and the design is more that 50 years old while the text is ineligible. The only other difference is the ineligible shape at the bottom. I suspect that if this argument is used, many apparently non-free passports could be defined as free. One editor claimed this has been discussed on this wiki before but he was unable to find it. Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, I think some passports, claimed as non-free, will actually be free because they are official documents. ww2censor (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Photo licensing code
Hello- I am trying to add a photo (File:Portrait Croppedpja.jpg) of myself to Misplaced Pages that was taken by a photographer. The Photographer gave me permission to use it at my will. He only asks that I credit his name. What licensing code would I use? Before posting the image? I emailed (permissions-en@wikimedia.org) with my request and left the information about the photo and our contact information. Can you help me here? Both myself and the photographer have the photo posted on Flickr.com as well. My link is http://www.flickr.com/photos/pauljalessi/2483873477/ Nicks is http://www.flickr.com/photos/apphoto/2482711388/ Paul J. Alessi 04:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Paul J. Alessi http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1568493/ http://www.pauljalessi.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauljalessi (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Flickr upload states that the photographer is reserving all rights, so for the sake of clarity you might want to get him to change that. As for the tag you should use, maybe confirm with the photographer that {{Attribution}} reflects his intentions and, if so, use that one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Canadian crown copyright
I tagged File:AlbertaHomesteadMap1918 t11-12 r1-3 map31.png for nonfree-without-rationale today, in response to which the uploader gave a rationale (albeit in nonstandard format) on the talk page. Two questions: (1) Is the rationale on the talk page adequate if moved to the description? (2) Is it truly out of copyright as claimed in the rationale? I've made a couple of stupid errors already tonight, due to sleepiness, so I'm not going to do anything about this myself. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Licensing#Canada and for a brief explanation of Canada copyright. Sv1xv (talk) 05:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of its status in Canada, it's PD in the US. I tagged it as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. – Quadell 13:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Dilbert comic
I think that the claim about File:Dilbert_PHB.JPG being 'public domain' is quite dubious. See here: http://www.dilbert.com/terms/. Probably it should be removed? Jdpipe (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, obviously not public domain. Probably a valid case of fair use though. Algebraist 09:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- The present use is not valid under the non-free content criteria. To be valid, it needs to show the bare minimum necessary to provide information directly related to what the text is discussing, in a way that the text alone cannot adequately describe. It might be valid to have an image that solely consists of the pointy-haired boss, in order to illustrate to the reader who the character is, but since the image contains Dilbert as well it's currently on the wrong side of the line, imo, irrespective of whether it's accompanied by non-free rationale. -- Hux (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Speedied as a blatant copyvio. Anyone wanting to make a fair use claim can let me know and I'll restore it. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg
The image File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg gets periodically added to the image gallery at European passport, I keep removing it as not having an FUR or meeting NFCC. Today User:Passportguy pointed me to this, which in point 4 seems to say that use is applicable. However, in further reading I wanted to see if the Value Added Licence mentioned was relevant. Point 15 of this explains that the liscense does seem to be relevant and that it can be obtained for a cost of £50. I notified Passportguy of this and he selfreverted his edit, suggesting that I seek further input here. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Did you look at the passport discussion a few post above this one? I believe that en:Crown copyright, which lasts for only 50 years, applies to the royal arms and that design is more that 50 years old, so crown copyright has run out, while the text is ineligible for copyright, in which case the non-free rationales are unnecessary. ww2censor (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Ww2censor. However, if we did need to for some reason purchase the value-added licence it would not be valid for use here since there is a royalty, it doesn't appear to be sublicensable to others, and the making of derivative works is questionable. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Need someone versed in trademark and probably copyright law to give an answer.
This has been an ongoing debate about whether it violates any copyright law to crop an image with the explicit intent to remove a logo from it for the purposes of WP:NPOV in the Video Games Wikiproject at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#COPYVIO implications and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games#Which box art to use as well as invisual game talk pages too numerous to mention.陣内Jinnai 20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know of no reason why a cropped version of the cover would violate copyright law or trademark law any more than a non-cropped one would. Our own WP:NFCC policy would accept either image equally well. – Quadell 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Quadell, beyond that WP:NFCC would, if anything, prefer the cropped version owing to criterion 3b. IANAL yet, but there is nothing in intellectual property law to prevent cropping a copyrighted work for any reason, provided that the doctrine making the use legitimate (in the U.S., that would be fair use) applies to the cropped work. Here, it would. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Image of Neda from the Iran protests
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/Neda_non_graphic.jpg is a trimmed frame from a youtube video of the Iranian demonstrator Neda Soltani. It's impossible to determine who the owner of the work is at this point, but what kind of license should be applied to it? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- We don't need to know the author in order to know the copyright status. Normally, that status would be "under copyright", since whoever the author was would have copyright unless he/she deliberately waived it. However, per Iran and copyright issues, "Published works originating in Iran...are not copyrighted in the United States." Let me do a little more digging. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, per Misplaced Pages:Public_domain#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S., Jimbo apparently wants us to respect Iranian copyrights. That being the case, tag it with {{Non-free fair use in|Neda Soltani}} (and then include a fair use rationale), and maybe put the link I just posted somewhere on the description page to explain why we're not treating it as being in the public domain. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's correct, SI. Well done. – Quadell 13:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and created Template:Iran copyright to deal with such images. Let me know if you think it's helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's correct, SI. Well done. – Quadell 13:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, per Misplaced Pages:Public_domain#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S., Jimbo apparently wants us to respect Iranian copyrights. That being the case, tag it with {{Non-free fair use in|Neda Soltani}} (and then include a fair use rationale), and maybe put the link I just posted somewhere on the description page to explain why we're not treating it as being in the public domain. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Image Usage.
The image that I wish to upload is an image of an author. The author gave me permission to use the image but I found the image on a website. Is it acceptable to use the image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamconor (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but, I would suggest reading this. It shows how to request/document getting permission to use images. If you need help, let me know.--Rockfang (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's acceptable to use the image only if, in addition to permission to use the image on Misplaced Pages, the author gave anybody permission to use the image for any purpose, including commercial and derivative works, with only the requirement of attribution retained. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Image found on several different sites and is at least 50 years old
This image is said to be found at multiple internet sites (A search for 'Velimirovic' on Google images will reveal another dozen internet sites that use this image) and is at least 50 years old. Does this make the image acceptable for Misplaced Pages? Kpant (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not definitely. If it's more than 86 years old (i.e. it dates to before 1923), then it's in the public domain. If it's in the public domain in its country of origin and was by 1996, it should be in the public domain in the U.S. But based only on the information I have available, no, I can't say it can be used on Misplaced Pages (unless it's under fair use, but I'd have to know what article you wanted to use it in an why to evaluate that - see WP:NFCC). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply! I assume it must be after 1923, but I don't know how to check if it is public domain? I want to use it for the main article on Nikolaj Velimirovic, who is on that photo. The same photo is used on the Serbian[REDACTED] . Kpant (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- It seems unlikely to be in the public domain, unless (assuming it's a Serbian work) its creator died at least seventy years ago. It could be usable under a claim of fair use if you can make a case that no free alternatives can be found (this would require you to defend the proposition that no images published pre-1923 photographs of him are available and/or that older images would not serve the intended purpose). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply! I assume it must be after 1923, but I don't know how to check if it is public domain? I want to use it for the main article on Nikolaj Velimirovic, who is on that photo. The same photo is used on the Serbian[REDACTED] . Kpant (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Harold Pinter
Hello. I uploaded this image: File:PinterDavidBaron.jpg for use in the Harold Pinter article. Pinter is a deceased playwright. Another editor disputes whether the image satisfies our non-free image policies, while I believe that it does satify the policy. Can anyone here help? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that the rationale should include a better justification of why a picture of him early in his career specifically is needed. Assuming that one is, and assuming it's true that no free images from that period are available (and recognizing that you can't prove a negative), I think this is probably okay. Some of User:NYScholar's arguments puzzle me somewhat; he/she does not seem to have a clear understanding of fair use or WP:NFCC, and almost all of her/his arguments seem to be devoted to establishing that the image is under copyright, which seems to have been conceded at the outset. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with a correct fair use rationale, as this is a length article, it would be good to use in the early life section. I agree that NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arguments are somewhat impenetrable. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, WP:NFCC does require that non-free images "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Frankly, I doubt that the use of non-free images solely to illustrate people really complies with the letter of that statement, though it's very well-established practice. But non-free images to illustrate people at different states of their careers? That might be pushing it. But that's also probably a question for WP:FFD, which is where NYScholar should probably take this if he/she wants it deleted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with a correct fair use rationale, as this is a length article, it would be good to use in the early life section. I agree that NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arguments are somewhat impenetrable. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)