Hosta

Archives
Archive list Archive year 2006 Closed Archive year 2007 Closed Archive year 2008 Closed Archive year 2009 Closed Archive year 2010 Closed Archive year 2011 Closed Archive year 2012 Closed Archive year 2013 Open Archives from pages now merged here (note: more recent questions from these pages can be found at WP:MCQ or its archives above.) Requested copyright examinations archives Can I use... 2005-2006 archive Can I use... January-August 2007 archive Can I use... August-December 2007 archive Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk/Archive 1 Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk/Archive 2

How to add a copyright tag to an existing image

1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
2. From the page Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
   • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
   • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
   • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
5. Hit Save page.
6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.

How to ask a question

1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to ask your question" link above.
2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.

Note for those replying to posted questions

If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

Would a "All circuits are busy" telephony message be in the Public domain?

Hi, I am wondering if a telephony recording of a North American "All circuits are busy" message would be in the Public domain? Do you think we could upload it because it could be common property and contains no original authorship? Reply with {{u|CookieMonster755}} template. Thank you! CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 01:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• CookieMonster755 Seems to me it would still be copyrighted, depending on the date published. Each telecom company makes their own recordings, so they're really no different than any audio recording made by a company. Whether it is a person's voice on the recording (see Jane Barbe) or a mechanical voice, someone put some creative input into the recording, even if the message is just "all circuits are busy". I could be wrong here (and please chime in if I am), but that's how I read it. Crow^Caw 00:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Crow. You are probably right. It's weird though, the busy signal for telephony and other signals are on the Commons as common property. I guess busy signals are not copyrighted? I will try to do some more research. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 04:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

One small correction, but I think it's important: for sound recordings, the date published has no bearing on US public domain status. Recordings made before 1972 are not protected by federal copyright, but state and common-law protections still apply. No sound recordings have fallen into the US public domain because of their age. Under current laws, that won't happen until 2067. ReverendWayne (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Derivative?

Is File:Jean_Metzinger,_1915,_Soldat_jouant_aux_échecs_(Soldier_at_a_Game_of_Chess),_X-ray_overlay.jpg similar enough to File:Jean_Metzinger,_Soldier_at_a_Game_of_Chess,_X-ray_composite.jpg that the former should be considered a derivative of the latter? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I honestly think they are both supposed to be the same image, as they were both used in the same article. I'm trying to figure out why there are differences in the images... TLSuda (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, So one is a recreation of the image by a user (which is not encyclopedic, because it isn't what is created by the original person) using "public domain" x-ray images, and the other is the original image. Now that I understand that, I would say yes it is derivative (although technically recreated) and that it should be deleted if for no other reason that it is a misrepresentation of the artwork. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The original work is a painting by Jean Metzinger. One X-ray composite overlay was created by medical doctors, and yet a new version by myself. The new composite image should not be deleted, as it displays sufficient originality of its own, i.e., due to the substantial transformativeness, the derivative work is fair use. Coldcreation (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Family Photos

Hello, My Grandfather was Arturs Cavara and there is a wikipedia page about him. Several months back I posted an image of him from a photograph that my family owns. When I checked the page, it was deleted. This was very disappointing to my family, who would like to see his image remembered. How do I post a family photo of him that is not breaking any copyright laws? I also have documents from WWII European refugee camps that he stayed in (of which we own but were never "copyrighted"), which I posted for the sake of preserving history. Again, these were deleted and I saw no reason why. How do I prove these are family items, which have been scanned and given by the Cavara family. Thank you for your time. Sincerely bcavara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcavara (talk • contribs) 21:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, there are a few instructions here about providing permission for media. These might help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Licence tag

Which licnece tag should I select for photos of tennis players to be put in their article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silaslej (talk • contribs) 10:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That depends entirely on how the photo is licenced. Generally we only accept freely licenced images where it is verified that the copyright holder has release the image under a free licence. if you are referring to File:Kvitova WC 2010.jpg the source clearly attributed to Hamish Blair/Getty Images Europe), so as a press agency image we cannot use it unless you get the copyright holder's permission. The other 2 images you uploaded are also Getty Images. You might find it useful to read my image copyright information page that explains several of the reasons why images can be rejected and deleted. ww2censor (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot tagging

The ImageTaggingBot tagged (twice) a file I uploaded (a college crest) as having no licensing data, although I have given it a Non-free use rationale logo template for its licensing. Is there a bug with the bot or did I do somoething wrong? Is it only admins that can remove the bot's tag? Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 13:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

A non free rationale is not a licence which is why the bot tagged it again after you removed its first tag. Later User:NickW557 added, the required, appropriate non-free logo licence template and now the bot is happy! Have a look at the history to see the progression. In polite computer speak we used to call this "user error". Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Así es el tango

I would like to use the image here File:Asíeseltango.jpg in an article I am working on for Olinda Bozán, but it was apparently originally input as "fair use." I do NOT understand which one of the templates is supposed to be modified. It appears there are multiple templates on the file. The photograph is a still from a movie made in 1937 in Argentina. It can be verified here [Argentine Ministry of Culture] site, which I appended to the file description so that "anyone can verify it." Argentine license has expired, as 78 years have passed since the photograph was created and published. It should also be in the US public domain as it entered Argentine pubic domain in 1962, well before 1996. It is in US public domain "if it entered the public domain in Argentina prior to 1996." Can someone please transfer this to commons so that I can use it? Any help is greatly appreciated. SusunW (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The photograph seems to have been taken on set of the film judging by the faces of the actress on the left and centre looking at the camera. It's a PD photo. It was originally given a fair use rationale before I was aware of the PD:Argentina license. You'll find many more PD photos on that Acceder website which can be uploaded to the commons. Make sure they're not photos or actual screenshots though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It does look like the image is PD in the US as well as Argentina. As it stands you can use the image on the enwiki without it being on the commons for the article Olinda Bozán. ww2censor (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: A better quality main image can be uploaded from here [1] or here. Many more from Page 5 here. If you want film shots though make sure they're taken on set rather than actual screenshots. That acceder website is an astonishing resource for Argentine actors and films, in fact the commons would benefit from several thousand images if a bot was used.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Thanks, I thought fair use could only be used for the single file they were proposed for. But, I'd still like to have the photo moved to commons and don't know where or which one of those templates to change. @Dr. Blofeld: a bot would be lovely. Yes, there are thousands of images there. I will upload more for Bozan's file. SusunW (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We use the term non-free instead of the legal term fair use because our non-free policy is more restrictive and all such uses must comply with all 10 non-free policy guidelines. A rationale for each use must be specific to each use. In some cases an image is used multiple times but most often just once. Do you actually need to use this image outside the enwiki that requires it to be moved. It is already tagged for a bot to move it. I only see an Italian article and that has a PD image in it. ww2censor (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I didn't read that bot message like it was going to be moved at all. It says a human must verify it. Would seem to me that moving the image would improve the entire encyclopedia as anyone would have access to it. But, I have placed it in the article I wanted to use it with and it seems like what you are saying is leave it where it is. So, I move on. SusunW (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer if Dr Blofeld would make the decision on moving it as he was the original uploader and is an active editor but I'll have a look at it. ww2censor (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Embedded media file

I have a question about an embedded media file in 2014 Hong Kong protests#Local media coverage. It seems be a combination embedded citation/external link to a YouTube video using {{external media}}, which is something I've never come across before. Not sure if this style of linking is acceptable per Wp:CS#Avoid embedded links or if there are any copyright issues per WP:COPYLINK. Any clarification that can be provided would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright question

I have a jpeg photo taken by a professional photographer which I would like to upload to a specific Wiki article. The photographer has provided a written release as well as an email confirming the release covers upload to Wikipedia. I have read and reread the Wikipedia copyright guidelines but cannot figure out how to tag the photo correctly so it will not be deleted due to copyright issue. Hoping you can provide guidance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann Neff (talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to the commons image c:File:Barney Adams.jpg that was deleted back in April due to not having received any verification of permission. You need to get the copyright holder to follow the procedure found at c:COM:OTRS on the commons, where the image was originally uploaded, mentioning the original file name. If the OTRS team are happy with the permission they will restore the image with the tag agreed with the copyright holder. We can't advise you how to tag the image because we don't know under what licence the copyright holder released the image. Please be aware that the OTRS team can be rather backed up up with delays as long as a month, so be patient. ww2censor (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)