Hosta

Noticeboards, etc.

Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. See the dashboard for an expanded listing.

General	Administrators' noticeboard main incidents Bot owners Bureaucrats Closure Education main incidents Importing pages Main Page errors Open proxies OTRS Oversight User permissions

Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights file review questions on media problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Reliable sources Resource requests Spam blacklist whitelist Titleblacklist Translation

Page handling	History merges Mergers Moves Protection XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Miscellany Undeletion

User conduct	Abuse long-term cases Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring & 3RR Editor restrictions General sanctions New pages patrollers Paid editing Sockpuppets Usernames Vandalism

Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard requests enforcement Mediation Questions editor assistance Help desk new articles new editors Teahouse Requests for comment Village pump ideas policy proposals technical miscellaneous

Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

"Fair use" from third party as opposed to official sources

(Discussion moved from Village Pump)

Given that a truly free image to illustrate the John Menzies retail outlets can't be found after a reasonable amount of searching, is there any preference in the "fair use" policy to using a non-free image from the company's own official material ([1]) as opposed to one presumably taken by an unrelated a third party (e.g. this person's website).

My gut instinct would be that the former is preferable, but I've no idea if that has a basis in legal fact and/or WP policy...? Can any one clarify this?

(I should make clear that while Menzies still exists as a newspaper distribution and aviation business, the retail side- which was widespread and very well-known (particularly in Scotland)- was sold off in the late 1990s, and any accurate representations of them intact would by necessity be archive images. I've been unable to find free photographs of Menzies shops in their original state.)

Ubcule (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ubcule: I would say the preference would be for no illustration. The policy is, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I can't imagine how an image of a retail outlet would significantly increase readers' understanding. —teb728 t c 06:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that Menzies was a significant retail presence in its day, and the photo illustrates an example of that in a way that words couldn't entirely... I'd have to say that if this falls below the level deemed "significant" (and it can be argued that according to the strict wording of the policy it does), then I'd guess the vast majority of fair use images also fall below it.

Not saying that this excuses it, but if so, I'd like to see that policy applied consistently.

At any rate, I'd also appreciate an answer to my original question, as it's something I'd already wondered previously- is it acceptable to use a third party image in preference to a first party one if neither are free? Ubcule (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

In general, as long as you can properly attribute the copyright owner, I don't think it matters which non-free source you use. It would probably come down to quality of the image for the intended purpose. I suppose (broadly speaking) a random internet photo could itself have been pirated from the true owner, so by using the "official" one, at least there is no question as to ownership. Crow^Caw 17:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be preferable to use an image from the company? While we aim to be as strict as we can with WP:NFCC, we ultimately can never know how a court will rule (not that it is likely to get to that). It seems that it would be far more difficult for a company to claim any loss (or effect on their ability to exploit the value) when we are just using the image to show what their shops looked like in an encyclopaedic article and licencing images of their shops to people who just want to show what they looked like in an article probably isn't a business focus (although I guess there could be cases where it is). If the image found on a random website really belongs to someone else, and what's being depicted is rare, the person's primary interest in that image could very well be licencing it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Images

I've been working -- possibly to the point of distraction -- on the Norman Dike page. I want to use one or two images:

The first is this one of Dike and his English girlfriend at Littlecote House in 1943. (If the book doesn't open to the right page, search for Norman Dike.) The photographer was John Reeder, who was serving as a lieutenant at the time. Reeder, if I have the right guy, died in 2010. I think that the picture is in the public domain 1) by now based on the old rules or 2) from day one if Reeder was on duty when he took it (I can't tell from the context). I couldn't find the image on line so I did a screencap and cropped it; it's resting "comfortably" on my local machine. If I can use it as public domain or fair use, am I ethically obligated to mask the girlfriend (Dike was married at the time)?

The second is this one of Dike in a group on page 99; he is second from the right in the first row. I couldn't find a copyright or masthead in the magazine, although I'm sure there must have been one. This picture's primary value to me was to verify Dike's identity in the first image. I'd crop this one. Is this one out of copyright under the old rules or can I claim fair use? I haven't done the screencap yet.

If I've been overly fuzzy, let me know.

Thanks in advance,

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Under US copyright rules, a picture dating from 1941 would be out of copyright only if it was published and the copyright was not renewed. If it was never published, or if the copyright was proeprly renewed, it would still be protected. A picture taken by a soldier would be PD only if taken as a part of his assigned duties, a personal photo would still be under copyright even if he was on duty. If UK rules apply, then i'm not sure, but I suspect a similar outcome. DES ^(talk) 01:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I decided to crop the first image and upload it as File:Lieutenant Norman Dike (1943).jpg, claiming WP:Fair use. Comments on that one are welcome.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

jelly belly candy company gift shop image

Shows the Gift Shop sample bar at the Jelly Belly Candy Company in Fairfield, CA

This image is posted on the Jelly Belly Candy Company website image gallery to be used as needed for non-commerical reasons. I am not sure what tag should be added to the image so it can be posted on the wiki page.

Source: http://news.jellybelly.com/image_gallery.php?tag=California Tours

Date

Author

Jelly Belly Candy Company

Permission

(Reusing this file)

http://news.jellybelly.com/image_gallery_categories.php

mnighbor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnighbor (talk • contribs) 16:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly which image are you referring to on the two pages you linked to? Some appear to be Flickr images but we don't know which one so we can try to find the source and see if it is freely licenced. If not then we cannot use it. We do not accept images with non-commercial restrictions. ww2censor (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Google n-gram chart

1. I uploaded a Google n-gram chart ( :File:Paternoster etc ngram.jpg) to use in the discussion at Talk: Esperanto grammar #Patro nia. I couldn't find any license information on it or any discussion of usage permissions or restrictions, but the fact that Google provides embed code for it makes a pretty strong case for unlimited use.

I wrote that argument into the file description, but I couldn't find an item on the licensing dropdowns to describe it accurately. Naturally the upload interface, which can't read text, threw up the appropriate forest of warning flags, including a takedown date of June 1. What should I do?

2. I'm composing this question in a text app on my smartphone. The instructions for this page say

1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to ask your question" link above.

Ain't no such link via the Beta Mobile Front End, so I'm gonna hafta send this file to my laptop & post it from there. [PS: ~~Gonna~~ posted a bug report on Phabricator.]

To discuss any of this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Sorry, but there is nothing in the existence of embed code that undoes Google's copyright in their product and its results. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Neil Perez.jpg and June Macasaet[...].jpg

I proposed the File:Neil Perez.jpg and the File:June Macasaet Winning at the Manhunt International 2012.jpg to save the images to my own work it is related to the images of the article thanks.MarkHerson (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@MarkHerson: Don't just start a new subject at the end of a Talk (or other) page. That made your paragraph part of the discussion on my post "Google n-gram chart". This is how it looked; look down at the bottom.

I've inserted a section header to separate it, but the easiest way to start a new topic is to click the "New section" button at the top of a regular Talk page, or the link "Click here to ask your question" in the header of this or any other "Wikipedia:(blah blah)" question page. --Thnidu (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

So what exactly is your question? Are you asking why the images are likely to be deleted? Neither of them have a filled in {{information}} (click to see the full details you will use) template with all it necessary details such as the description, source, author and date, so we don't know who took the photo and where it came from. Also, there is no copyright tag so we don't know how it has been licenced by the copyright holder even if that is you. If they are your own images you must freely licence them by adding a tag such as {{Attribution}}, {{PD-self}} or {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} or similar appropriate free ones found at WP:TAGS and WP:ICT/FL. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

thumbnail

I'm putting a picture on my Wikipedia page and it's not letting me do it. It says that you can't use the picture without permission from the person who it on the internet, but it is on my user page where no one but me can see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWEFan1926 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Everyone can see and edit every page here, for the most part. Copyrighted material is not allowed anywhere, as it states above every edit window and you agree to by hitting the Save button. Crow^Caw 18:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

add poster viva film

it is matter to uploaded proposed of making the poster File:BoyGoldenShoottoKilltheArturoPorcunaStoryPoster.jpg said Philippine ip watching Boy Golden: Shoot to Kill, the Arturo Porcuna Story in official metro manila film festival 2013 happened? Oripaypaykim (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This is incomprehensible (NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND IT). --Thnidu (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Old UK painting (no copyright) now on Artnet

I am starting to write an article on a character called John Gerard Leigh (died 1875), so I would like to include an image or two.

He had a portrait done by Sir Francis Grant (d. 1878) and it was later donated to St Alban's Museum (UK) who advertised their intention to sell it in 1992. I presume that was when a photograph was taken of it for auction purposes. A low-res version is apparently used on quite a few auction history sites (most of which require membership and/or a fee to view the auction history/price and image). Artnet (a US site) displays this image up front but demands payment to see further auction details... http://www.artnet.com/artists/sir-francis-grant/portrait-of-gerard-leight-master-of-the-PZUUQ7fnKrSKgpjgcZw4ng2 (note they couldn't even get his name right). It is low-res to start with.

So as a 'slavish copy' of an out of copyright portrait, it cannot be copyrighted, can it, in the US? The only wrinkle I can see is that the painting was probably sold in the UK (so a new copyright is created on a copy) so the photographer was probably a British one, but I cannot find the auction house without paying to enter one of these sites.

Any guidance? Colin aka Henri Merton 22:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just found the auction record... http://artsalesindex.artinfo.com/asi/lots/2694786

so it was sold in New York in 1998. So no UK connection to copyright at all! So I guess OK to republish here as no copyright exists? Colin aka Henri Merton 23:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has basically said that it stands behind the fact that a 2D slavish reproduction of a public domain work (which this has to be given that we are past life + 70 at the worst possible case) cannot be a new copyright regardless of claims made by others (specifically the National Portrait Gallery). As such Commons will accept 2D images of clearly PD art without any issue. The end user may have to be concerned about reusing it (in this case, a UK reuser might have to consider a lower-grade image than high-res), but this doesn't apply to most of the rest of the world. You can read more at Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs or Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Masem! That is now clear that I can. So I also have a slavish copy of an old UK (1859) painting which has been recently copied in the UK from an illustration in a recent UK book. Do you think Wikipedia will allow me to upload that on the same basis? I accept that I run the risk (I am in the UK) of a civil suit for doing so! The same thing is relevant to the UK National Portrait Gallery issue I suppose.