Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2014/June
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Georgian State Museum of Music, Theatre, Cinema and Choreography
I am writing on behalf of Giorgi Kalandia, the Director of the largest museum in Tbilisi, Georgia- the Georgian State Museum of Music, Theatre, Cinema and Choreography. I have recently updated a number of entries on wikipedia regarding the museum and the exhibits we hold here. The copyright of several images has been questioned. The photographs of the images were taken by Mr Kalandia within the last year. The exhibits themselves (paintings, documents, models and statues) are all property of the museum and many are so old as I to be- I believe- free from copyright status. It may be that, in the uploading of the tagged images I chose the wrong copyright option. Please advise me as to how I can ensure the images remain on wikipedia. I do not wish to enfringe copyright. Thank you in advance for your help. Best regards,
Katie Davies, Foreign Relations Co-ordinator, Georgian State Museum of Music, Theatre, Cinema and Choreography Giorgi1975 (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- We basically need to have two things for each of the images that you want to upload: First, some idea that the original work is out of copyright, ideally shown by providing the artist's name and date of creation so we can validate that the works should be in the public domain; to do this, next time you upload them, just give as many details towards this end as reasonably possible in the file description. Secondly, since Mr. Kalandia took the photos of the works in question, the photographs are under his copyright, and we would need his assurance (or yours if you are an authorized representative for him) that he is providing his photographs of the art as a free license (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or even the public domain). This can be done by setting up an email to be sent to OTRS using what is described at WP:CONSENT (basically identify what is being offered and assurance of what free license they would allow it as). Once you do the email described by CONSENT, you will get a ticket number. This will allow you to upload the files again, and here I would use the option on the upload form "This is a free work" and "...given to me by its owner", as there then is a field there to include your ORTS ticket number so that the request pending can be checked. Hope that helps, as we appreciate the effort to provide such material to Wikipedia! --MASEM (t) 20:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- To determine whether the depicted artwork is separately copyrighted, we ideally need to know the name and lifespan of each artist. Please see commons:Template:PD-Georgia for a list of cases when the copyright for any work expires in Georgia. In short, if the author/creator of a work had been dead for at least 70 years on 1 January 1996 or if an anonymous work was published more than 70 years ago on that date, then a work is in the public domain in Georgia and in the US. The latter fact is even more important since the files are kept on a Wikipedia server in Florida and works not in the public domain in Georgia on 1 Jan. 1996 were retroactively copyrighted in the US too.
- For faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works like File:Colored print from the book Georgian Architecture by G.Gagarin.jpg there is no derivative copyright for the person who operates the scanner. You cannot release those under any free licence of your choice because they are either in the public domain anyway due to age or they are still copyrighted to the artist.
- So that requires the following check for each image:
- Find out if the depicted work was still copyrighted in Georgia on 1 January 1996 (70 years past death of the artist, 70 years past first publication if anonymous). N.B.: For Georgia this includes buildings and other works of architecture.
- If that is the case I'm afraid we can't keep the image unless a fair use claim can be made for significant objects.
- If the depicted object is out of copyright, please change the licences. For faithful 2D copies, please use {{PD-art}}, for images of 3D-objects photographed by Mr Kalandia,please use {{PD-art-70-3d}} and any additional free licence selected by Mr. Kalandia. De728631 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Find out if the depicted work was still copyrighted in Georgia on 1 January 1996 (70 years past death of the artist, 70 years past first publication if anonymous). N.B.: For Georgia this includes buildings and other works of architecture.
- So that requires the following check for each image:
'Murderpedia' as a source
Despite its name, Murderpedia [1] appears not to be a wiki. It does however appear to me to be possibly problematic as a source, in that it consists largely of material apparently copy-pasted from sources elsewhere - the sources are named, but I have to wonder whether such wholesale copying would be considered legitimate 'fair use'. And if it isn't, per Wikipedia policy, we can't link to sites carrying copyright violations. A search shows that Murderpedia is either cited, or linked in 'see also', in over 100 articles, suggesting that this will need careful consideration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I guess I can affirm that we will be capable enough to arrange better source for any information where we have used this link. If investigation proves that the link violates copyrights, it can be blacklisted. Thanks OccultZone (Talk) 08:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Best-fit (named) license to (unnamed) license terms?
A particular package of files, available for public download, is covered by license terms posted here. No well-known license name is mentioned, but key terms include reproducing the copyright notice (attribution?) and redistributing without a fee over cost of distribution (share alike?). If I import a file covered by those terms into Wikipedia, how should it be tagged? And would fair-use restrictions apply? Unician ∇ 07:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- The sentence "No charge, other than...without the express written consent of the copyright holders." appears to impose an NC restriction (in Creative Commons parlance). Which particular file(s) would be of use to Wikipedia? Chris857 (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- But, the very first line includes the following: All rights reserved. Some individual files may be covered by other copyrights (this will be noted in the file itself.), so we would really need to know exactly which file and see its licence. ww2censor (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- The particular file of interest is the project image, drawn by Neil Gaiman, which the Artwork page here documents as having been donated to the project, and so presumably under the project's general license terms. Since both small and large images are gif binary files, they have no source comments as, e.g., a PostScript or SVG file might, so I don't believe the phrase about additional license terms “noted in the file itself” could apply here. Unician ∇ 09:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- The problem I see is that even though the image was donated to the website, the site, as I mentioned above, claims all rights are reserved unless specifically noted. We don't know under what licence the artist donated the image. It could have been released into the public domain or it could be a non-commercial, non-derivative Creative Commons licence. We just don't know, unless you can find out by making an enquiry from the website requesting clarification of the licence. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- The particular file of interest is the project image, drawn by Neil Gaiman, which the Artwork page here documents as having been donated to the project, and so presumably under the project's general license terms. Since both small and large images are gif binary files, they have no source comments as, e.g., a PostScript or SVG file might, so I don't believe the phrase about additional license terms “noted in the file itself” could apply here. Unician ∇ 09:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- But, the very first line includes the following: All rights reserved. Some individual files may be covered by other copyrights (this will be noted in the file itself.), so we would really need to know exactly which file and see its licence. ww2censor (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Question about art on a building in Denver
Is this photo of a draped work of art hanging on the side of a building an example of "de minimus" or is it FOP or a violation? Cf. File:Shepard Fairey Obama Poster in Denver Colorado.jpg ... Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Arguably no - the hanging banner is the focus of the picture. Do note that FOP covered "fixed" works - buildings, installed art, and murals, so this banner is actually not something that would be considered under an FOP if it did exist since it is a temporary work. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Use of non-free image "IandThouSpeak"
I would like to use the non-free image File:IandThouSpeak.jpg from the article I and Thou (band), which is copyright Annie Haslam / Jason Hart, to illustrate the "Visual art" section of the Annie Haslam article (the creator of the painting on the album cover). I believe this use would satisfy a criterion of direct relevance. Is this a permissible use of this image? If so, what do I need to do at the License page. I'm pretty sure I can handle the code in the article itself. Thanking you, in anticipation (whatever the outcome)CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately neither use is permissable without additional information that would necessitate the requirements for using non-free. As an album cover, it can only be used if the album itself is notable, which doesn't appear to be given that the album's being covered in the band's article. To be used on Haslam's article, there needs to be critical commentary from other sources that describe that specific work of art, not just that she was the artist. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your speedy and helpful reply. Keep up the good work.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
can i use this image?
can is use this image in a magazine article?
https://www.google.com/search?q=BP+oil+spill+images&rlz=1C1OPRB_enUS587US588&espv=2&tbm=isch&imgil=eScjwx3lQ_kF-M%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcQWtKlk6iX5-RuVzPJoYJ8x_8UlhBkSYS4ne3UjPm_BkJhF41jl%253B3264%253B2448%253BeQvDl8G4tqfMgM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwiki.riteme.site%25252Fwiki%25252FDeepwater_Horizon_oil_spill&source=iu&usg=__eo_pvzX3SqaooqIQGvJG0L0dW8s%3D&sa=X&ei=IPORU4GBI9KJqgbKpYKgCQ&ved=0CCIQ9QEwAA&biw=1059&bih=615#facrc=_&imgrc=eScjwx3lQ_kF-M%253A%3BeQvDl8G4tqfMgM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252F9%252F9d%252FDeepwater_Horizon_offshore_drilling_unit_on_fire_2010.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwiki.riteme.site%252Fwiki%252FDeepwater_Horizon_oil_spill%3B3264%3B2448 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeslieGordon1433 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- File:Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling unit on fire 2010.jpg (same as given by that Google search query) is the work of the US Coast Guard, and is thus Public Domain. Basically, that means no restrictions, no permission needed, no royalties. Go ahead and use it, though you may wish to credit the Coast Guard. Chris857 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, for the reason Chris gives, but also any image on Commons (and this one is on Commons) is free or has been licensed for use including commercial use (if we have been doing our job properly). Thincat (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Photo of the side of a building in Boston
Hello. I took a photo of the side of a building in Andrew Square in Boston, Massachusetts, where there was a mural painted with no attribution. I am the author of the photo. I didn't paint the mural. There is no information I saw at the residential building about who painted the mural. Or maybe it was graffiti on the wall of a building. I uploaded the photo I took and added it into the article on the Andrew (MBTA station). The image in the English Wikipedia is File:Mural near Andrew Square Boston 06032014,jpg.jpg. A WP sys admin User:Ronhjones flagged it as an image with no permission. Here is his edit:
- 23:39, 4 June 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+160) . . User:Ronhjones/CSD log (Logging speedy deletion nomination of File:Mural near Andrew Square Boston 06032014,jpg.jpg. (TW))
I made the photo. I gave permission. The people who painted it are not identified near the building as far as I could tell. Can someone please advise or even fix this? I've been editing Wikipedia since January 2005. The objection seems absurd on the face of it. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Art in public areas in the US does not have freedom of panorama, meaning that the artist - even unknown - owns the copyright. When the artist is unknown, the copyright extends for 120 years from the date of publication, and it's clear we're still within that timeframe. As such, while you took the photo, the art is copyrighted and cannot be treated as free. --MASEM (t) 05:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply and explanation. It seems somewhat odd since if one were to take a photo of a railcar with graffiti painted on it, it wouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia with your reasoning. There must be many examples of images allowed on Wikipedia like this which have been kept. Consider this example on Commons: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LeslievilleSuperheroMural.jpg --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Another example: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Houston_Street_at_the_Bowery_2008.jpg --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Superhero mural in Canada is a failure - Canada has no FOP for 2D art in public places, in addition to issues with being derivative works of copyrighted characters, and I'm going to report it. The Bowery image is an example of de minimus -where the graffiti in that picture is not the focus of the picture, it's the building in the center (and yes, in the US, buildings do have freedom of paranoma and cannot be copyrighted). --MASEM (t) 05:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. There are many instances of contradictions around WP on this. Also, what about this Banksy image? Did Banksy give explicit permission for this? commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banksy-ps.jpg ... because it was taken in the UK? --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- UK generally has the same FOP limits as the US + Canada, so technically it is a failure. However, per Commons:CB#Graffiti, when it comes to illegal graffiti (as Banksy's works tend to be), there is an understanding that is uncopyrightable; this was discussed for that image as part of a number of others; this would also apply to the graffiti on the side of train cars,, for example. Now, in your first original image, that looks like a legally-painted mural, and that's a different matter altogether (on that same page at commons) and legal protection does come into play. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks again. I'm confused. I'm not so sure the image I photographed was not graffiti. However, I give up. I'll likely not be uploading any more photos to WP after years of doing so. Best. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Can't resist. "De minimus"? ... commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shepard_Fairey_Obama_Poster_in_Denver_Colorado.jpg ... --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- The law will one day be changed. In the end this will happen because of the utter absurdity of the present situation. Meanwhile, posting here is just a fast-track to Commons:Deletion requests or WP:Files for deletion and you are spared the trouble of working out which one is correct! Thincat (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks to everyone for your kind help in this matter. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, another editor Pi.1415926535 (talk) found out who painted the mural. A local artist by the name of Dan McCole in South Boston. (information source). See Dan McCole's blog on the mural realization presumably in 2009. Andrew Square Mural, danmccole.blogspot.com, 2009. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- The law will one day be changed. In the end this will happen because of the utter absurdity of the present situation. Meanwhile, posting here is just a fast-track to Commons:Deletion requests or WP:Files for deletion and you are spared the trouble of working out which one is correct! Thincat (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- UK generally has the same FOP limits as the US + Canada, so technically it is a failure. However, per Commons:CB#Graffiti, when it comes to illegal graffiti (as Banksy's works tend to be), there is an understanding that is uncopyrightable; this was discussed for that image as part of a number of others; this would also apply to the graffiti on the side of train cars,, for example. Now, in your first original image, that looks like a legally-painted mural, and that's a different matter altogether (on that same page at commons) and legal protection does come into play. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. There are many instances of contradictions around WP on this. Also, what about this Banksy image? Did Banksy give explicit permission for this? commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banksy-ps.jpg ... because it was taken in the UK? --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Is File:Watch Dogs-Chicago comparison.png allowed?
This image is composed of a video game screenshot which is permitted under fair use and a photo of a real building from Google Street View, which is prohibited. Is this file allowed or disallowed? Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- The screenshot can be used under fair use terms, but the photo from the street is freely replaceable. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Tagged for freely replaceable. I will note that a free photo next to the screenshot would be right in line, knowing that there's been commentary on the comparison of the city in Watch Dogs to that of real Chicago to justify the screenshot use. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Question about Copyright of photograph
If the person photographed and the photographer are both dead eighty years ago, will it be a violation of copyright if their photos are posted in Wikipedia ? Their photos are printed everywhere in books and magazines as copyright in India expires after fifty years of the owner/creator's death. I wanted to know this because such photographs have been deleted from the page I created on Kishorimohan Bandyopadhyay.Shankar Sen (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- The difficulty might be that to allow photos here they have to free to use in the United States and that depends more on when they were first published with the photographer's agreement than when the subjects died. In this photo, File:Kishori.jpg, by saying you are the author do you realise you are claiming you are the original photographer? That is obviously not what you mean, as you explain here. For the oldest book or magazine you can find, when was it published? Thincat (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC).#
- I have now found the photo at http://kishorimohanbandyopadhyay.wordpress.com/ which says it is the only photograph of him. If so, look at WP:NFCI number 10 and you will see that you can have the photo even if it is not free in the US because, if it is not free, it will not be possible to find another one that is free. You would only be able to use the photo in the article about him. Kishori Mohan Bandyopadhyay, and you would not be able to use the photo of his wife, unfortunately. Thincat (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
According to copyright law, you have just recently impressed upon me that I , as the owner of the photograph dedicated by the photo subject am not the copyright holder. Accordingly I wish to transfer it to the "fair use" clause, utilising the section where the subject is no longer living. It forms an important part of the biography and adds to the value of the file. What procedures to I follow to make this change before it is removed? ThxAldercraft (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that you are talking about File:Siegfried Palm 1971 dedicated photo from first of two Southern Africa musical tours.jpg, right? You don't own the copyright to the image because the original photographer does. You own a signed copy of a print of the image, which does not give you the ability to release it under a free license. To be used under fair use, the image must meet WP:NFCC. To meet that, one of the photos would have to be cropped out of the image, and the file size reduced (WP:NFCC#3&WP:NFCC#2). You would then want to replace the {{information}} template with the {{Non-free use rationale}} template and replace the free license with {{Non-free historic image}}. You will probably have to work on doing this with many of your uploads. Hope this helps. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Information was provided
All the required information was posted for File:George A. Smith, Los Angeles politician and businessman.jpg. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I believe the bot was confused by some bad wikicode you had in the infoblock. I've fixed that up and removed the message since you did provide the evidence requested to show the image in PD. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
pictures
How do I download pictures on facebook to an album? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.233.149 (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Found image I believe is copyright
Hi, On english wikipedia an editor has been disruptive and added two pictures I believe is copyright. These are File:Sergio Ramos celebrating his goal in the --2014 Champions League Final-- 2014-06-11 00-37.jpg and File:Kerrison 2014-06-11 00-27.jpg. The first one can be found (after quick google search) at this link which states below picture "(Photo by Adam Pretty/Bongarts/Getty Images)" so seems copyvio. The other I am sure is copyright as well. I dont know what to do so I went here. Thanks for any help. QED237 (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Both photos have been uploaded to commons so there's no much we can do on en.wiki directly. However, the first one I have tagged as a clear copyvio at commons (since Gettys). I'd say the second is likely the same (it has that feel) but I can't figure out who is the copyright owner yet. But I will start a questionable copyright claim there too. --MASEM (t) 01:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: Thank you, I am so bad at images, need to learn (and I will). QED237 (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The website http://samoanbios.com/ bears a clear http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en_US license. Does that mean I can include text and images from the website in articles? What templates should I use on the text and the images to indicate the soruce? Stuartyeates (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I would be careful about using anything from that site, Im not sure they have the copyright for the images they host. Werieth (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Example of copyrighted images used on there site: http://mbphoto.photoshelter.com/gallery/Silver-Ferns-Head-Shots-2012/G00005eUY9aAfW7o Werieth (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've ammended my question to only talk about text. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Example of copyrighted images used on there site: http://mbphoto.photoshelter.com/gallery/Silver-Ferns-Head-Shots-2012/G00005eUY9aAfW7o Werieth (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I have already submitted permissions for photos - why am I being told I haven't?
I have already submitted permissions for photos to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. The photos are titled File:Dalai Lama awarding Shirin Darasha and her students and teachers.jpg and File:Shirin Darasha's profile photo.png
Why am I being told that I haven't sent the emails that contain permission to use these photos?
Please respond urgently. Warm Regards, Sanju — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjeevani Rao (talk • contribs) 08:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Probably because the OTRS team, who on occasions have a backlog of up to a month, have not yet got around you processing the permisssion and verifying it with the copyright holder. Both images were already deleted but if the permission checks out they will be restored, the second was deleted but you reuploaded it without providing any evidence of permission or source, so it will be marked as missing source and permission and you will have to submit the permission from the copyright holder if that has not been done previously. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Uploading photo of a living person in the article about the same person
I have created a page on a living person. The friend of that person has emailed me the photo of the person. The same person's photo is also available on the net. Under which category can I upload the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchetans (talk • contribs) 06:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Unless your friend is the person that took the photo, we can't use that image. All images of living persons must be free images (per WP:NFCC#1, the replacement of non-free with free equivalents), so unless your friend took it, the image is likely copyright someone else. If your friend did take the photo and thus the copyright holder, then you'd have to follow the forms at WP:CONSENT to have them agree to give the image as a free license. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Are you perhaps referring to File:Chakravati.jpg? First of all we need the photographer's written permission to use their work under a free licence of their choice, e.g. Creative Commons. Such licences must include the opportunity for derivatives and commercial re-use of the photograph, i.e. using an image for the purpose of Wikipedia only is not possible. Please ask them to send an email as outlined in WP:CONSENT. Once the photographer has sent such an email, you can upload the image and tag it with the appropriate licence and a strin
{{otrs pending}}(this will inform other editors that the confirmation has been sent). Please note also that since in theory anyone can make a photograph of a living person to publish it under a free licence we generally don't accept fair use images of living people.
- As to the categories, you could use the same ones as in the article on Chakravarthy Chandrachud but please do not add categories to the file page before the licence issue has been settled. De728631 (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this ineligible, or does the stylized road push it over the line of originality? --NE2 20:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- IANAL, but I think that the road is of a pretty simple design, and is not creatively different from the "ideal" symbol of a road (with the rest of the logo being simple by US standards - text and border). Is there a way we could contact the operators of the Chicago–Kansas City Expressway to get an absolute answer? Chris857 (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- The operators are the states of Illinois and Missouri; the logo was designed jointly ("MoDOT worked with IDOT to develop the C-KC logo sign") and is placed above Route 110 signs in both states. Here's an interesting similar case: File:Avenue of the Saints logo.svg which the U.S. Copyright Office declined. --NE2 21:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Is File:Blizzard Entertainment Logo.svg actually PD ineligible? The text is stylized with ridges and whatnot—wanted to run it past someone czar ♔ 03:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Given the text artwork isnt just a font, I would consider it copyrighted. Werieth (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- The two "Z"s are different -- not a font and should be copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Eh, as I see it, it still constitutes simple text. Even though it *technically* isn't a font due to two letters being different, it's still made up of basic lettering in the end. Just a note that the file was previously nominated for deletion and kept on the Commons, albeit four years ago with limited participation. Pinging @Werieth & @Masem in case they're interested; wouldn't mind a more in-depth explanation if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing this is a borderline case that could be argued either way. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
copyright for a photograph of an artwork vs. copyright for the artwork
In order to place an image of an artwork on a page, it must be designated as a "free work" or a "fair use" work. I have a photograph of an artwork - the photograph itself is a free work but the artwork it represents is not. This is not a photographic "copy" of the art but a snapshot of an art installation in a public space - "in situ" - the copyright language, however, is ambiguous. If this image is designated as "free work" will users take this to mean the artwork itself maybe copied in other forms? [please respond to my Talk page]Tablethree (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, merely mentioning "free work" is ambiguous and can be misleading. There should be distinct descriptions of the status of the artwork and of the status of the photographic work, so that the reader can understand easily what status applies to what work. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- But how can I upload this image without giving up copyright of the artwork itself?Tablethree (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry but you can't. Wikipedia wants freely licenced images and to that end you cannot restrict the licence to non-commercial or non-derivative use, we don't accept those restrictions; you must allow other to use the image for anything. A "free work" is ambiguious. Does that mean it is available to be found freely on the internet? Maybe, but that does not mean it has a free licence. It can a bit complicated but in the end we need to be able to verify the copyright status of any uploaded image and if it is an image of artwork we need to know that both the photo and the artwork are freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- You have not explained where you intend to use the image, but assuming you want to use the image in an article about that particular artwork or about the artist who created it, articles where the representation of the artwork would probably meet the fair use criteria, then describe separately and clearly the respective statuses of the artwork and of the photograph. For example, you can use Template:Photo of art, with the free license of the photographic work as parameter, and add a fair use rationale adapted for the particular artwork and the particular article, either with Template:Non-free use rationale or in another suitable form. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for this message - it's extremely helpful!.Tablethree (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello
I'm currently working on an article for a single by a recording artist/musician. I'd like to upload the cover artwork but I'm unsure of how to do it myself. I'm sure this is an easy process with the correct knowledge, since single artworks are posted all the time. Could somebody please post it for me? Here's the official cover - http://www.josepvinaixa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Porcelain-Black-One-Woma-Army-2014-1200x1200.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandapopmusic (talk • contribs) 16:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- When the article is ready for mainspace you can upload the image but it must be about 300x300 px to comply with the non-free content criteria policy guideline and you must have made at least 10 edit before you can upload files. For such an album cover you should use this template {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} so long as the image will be used in the article about that specific album. Look at the details of the template or ask someone to do it for you (either here or on someone's talk page) when you are ready. As a placeholder you can use File:Example.jpg or one of the others you find at Category:Wikipedia image placeholders Good luck. ww2censor (`talk) 17:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- We also have WP:Files for upload where users can request images be uploaded. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- When the article is ready for mainspace you can upload the image but it must be about 300x300 px to comply with the non-free content criteria policy guideline and you must have made at least 10 edit before you can upload files. For such an album cover you should use this template {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} so long as the image will be used in the article about that specific album. Look at the details of the template or ask someone to do it for you (either here or on someone's talk page) when you are ready. As a placeholder you can use File:Example.jpg or one of the others you find at Category:Wikipedia image placeholders Good luck. ww2censor (`talk) 17:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Photo is licensed as a book cover, but clearly isn't
File:45699 galatea at dereham on the mid norfolk railway.jpg, uploaded by Essexlocomotiventhusiast (talk · contribs), is licensed {{Non-free book cover}} but it clearly isn't a book cover. What's the procedure here? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- It has been tagged as a non-free orphan and maybe will get the uplaoder's attention. It fails WP:NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have now also tagged it as replaceable fair use. Actually it looks like the uploader is the photographer and copyright holder so they ahould release it under a free licence. De728631 (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright on St. Hubert's Key
I found an image for the article St Hubert's Key, but I am not sure of copyright status. Can I upload it, and what as? (Two images found here: http://web.prm.ox.ac.uk/amulets/index.php/keys-amulet3/) --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any way of uploading this image. First of all it is certainly copyrighted, and then a fair use claim wouldn't work because there are other such keys that can be photographed to publish the result under a free licence. De728631 (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Can you help me find a fair-use image? I can't seem to find anything accurate...--Sigehelmus (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- You can't use a non-free image as it will fail our non-free policy because a free image can be taken. There don't seem to be any freely licenced images on Flickr or to be found by Google, so you may just have to go to the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, where admission is free, and take a photo yourself which you can upload under a free licence, or see if some Wiki members live close who can help you. ww2censor (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- You might try posting at Talk:Pitt_Rivers_Museum or contacting some of the regular editors there, in case someone watching that page is local and can take a photo for you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's what I was afraid of hearing, haha. I'll check out the talk page though.--Sigehelmus (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Can you help me find a fair-use image? I can't seem to find anything accurate...--Sigehelmus (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Despite an earlier discussion where nobody decided to help out, I finally blundered through uploading a copyrighted image to the Star of Caledonia article. I would like to ask whether all the information I have put on the image is correct and what to do in future. Other than WP screenshots, I have never uploaded a copyrighted image before to Wikipedia. Is the image okay to use on Wikipedia? I don't know who the original artist is, only that it is owned by the Gretna Landmark Trust and many similar images have been used in the media. Is everything I have done correct? Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 8 years 18:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- As best as I can tell, you're good, you've tagged it all appropriately. Do note that when the sculpture is completed, the freedom of panorama laws in the UK would allow us to take a free photograph of the work , rendering this null, but until that can be done, the non-free is fine. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Despite an earlier discussion where nobody decided to help out do you mean this discussion, where you asked how to upload a copyrighted image and two different editors responded with two places you could ask for help? One of which was here. I see you asked at neither place. I considered uploading it myself, but I didn't think it qualified, so I wanted you to check with editors more familiar with the Non-free guidelines. I see that User:Masem thinks it is OK, and that editor knows the guidelines better than I do, but I wouldn't have guessed that an artists impression would qualify for fair use, when the subject isn't the artists impression but the subject depicted.
- If directing you to the site where the experts hang out doesn't qualify as help what were you expecting?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- The artist's impression of a far-from-completed work (building or work of art) that is otherwise already notable is completely reasonable to have, presuming the design of the work is part of why it is notable. On the other hand, if the work was completed, then no, we'd not allow the artist's conception unless there is something significantly important (like a discussed change) that only the artist's rendition can show. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I poked around and see that we do have other artist's renderings under fair use, so I feel better, but I hadn't seen any at the time. --S Philbrick(Talk) 23:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- The artist's impression of a far-from-completed work (building or work of art) that is otherwise already notable is completely reasonable to have, presuming the design of the work is part of why it is notable. On the other hand, if the work was completed, then no, we'd not allow the artist's conception unless there is something significantly important (like a discussed change) that only the artist's rendition can show. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
New at this--issues with file uploads
I recently uploaded a number of pictures to use on Southwestern Michigan College's wiki page. I work for the college and have permission to upload our files for inclusion on wikipedia. We own all the images I uploaded. I uploaded them as free work, but I received a bunch of error messages saying they may be deleted, some because they are used elsewhere on the web and others because it says they have a copyright (they shouldn't; as I said, the college owns all the rights to the images and the college asked me to upload them). Is there a way I can speedily resolve these issues? Rlbreden (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Rlbreden
- Hi Rlbreden - even though the college asked you to upload the images, they (the copyright owners) need to explicitly release the image under the license you have specified. They can do so by sending permission through Wikipedia's OTRS system. As given to you in the standard messages you received on your talk page, the college will need to do the following:
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
- Once the copyright owner has sent permission to OTRS, you can add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion. Let us know if you have any more questions! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Military crests, patches and badges
File:168_RCAF_Squadron_Crest_manufactured_by_Crest_Craft_of_Saskatoon,_circa_1944.jpg.
For clarity and simplicity in the future, I’m wondering if there is an existing topic & category that I’ve missed or if it would be possible to define a new category and Rationale template for Military crests, patches and badges; mainly cloth, some metal. I don’t know enough to determine if these should be “Free-use”, “Fair-use” or “Non-free use” for most items in this category.
I am both a historian and collector of old Royal Canadian Air Force (R.C.A.F.) patches and badges. I fully admit to knowing nothing other than what I have read these past few days on Wiki related sites regarding Copyright - I'm a newbie.
I took a shot at creating my first article for Wiki this past week. It’s been a difficult learning curve and I would like to thank those in the background who have been helping me clean up my format.
To the article, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/No._168_Squadron_RCAF, I have added the image in question. I would like to contribute to existing and new topics of this type on Wiki by including scans (or photos) of crests, patches and badges associated with Military Units as the subject of the article. Symbolically, these crests represented units for which the soldiers, airmen and naval personnel were fighting. They represent allegiances and accordingly, it can be argued are of historical importance, much like Country or Unit flags or other National emblems.
Issues and considerations include:
- The current owner of the item
- The age of the item or year of manufacture
- Indication of the manufacturer, if known
- Whether the original manufacturer has or ever had any Copyright on the image
- Reproduction of Military photographs where individuals(s) are wearing crests or patches
- The use of Disney characters on crests and patches. I understand this was allowed without copyright infringement during the WWII (and Korea and Vietnam??)
- Subsequent use by others, credit to image
I think it is safe to assume that any crest purchased or held by an individual represents either the original or current owner. How would one ever know if the original manufacturer ever had copyright, especially on companies which are long out of business?
Hopefully I will receive some guidance which I can use for future image uploads to Wiki Commons and incorporation into articles.
A much better place (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Let me see where to start here. There's commons:Category:Military insignia of Canada that has lots of free images you can use. As to uploading new pictures, you need to determine the copyright status for each item individually. For CAF badges you can use a rule of thumb: if it was first published before 1964 it is out of copyright because these badges were subject to Crown Copyright at that time (see also {{PD-Canada}}). And as publication would certainly have coincided with the approval of a certain badge I'd say that you need to research the date of approval by the armed forces to be sure.
- Now let me try to address your list of bullet points:
- The current owner of the item: Physical ownership is irrelevant for copyright matters because copyright is granted to the original artist. I.e. if you own a copy of a badge in your collection it doesn't mean that you're allowed to publish it.
- The age of the item or year of manufacture: I don't know enough about this to give you any clues how to research the age of individual items but as I wrote above you might want to check for the official approval of a badge or crest.
- Indication of the manufacturer, if known: if you know the manufacturer it won't hurt to indicate them on the file page but I don't see how metal or cloth patches would create separate copyrights apart from the heraldic image.
- Whether the original manufacturer has or ever had any Copyright on the image: Unless the badge was custom-designed by a manufacturer for inoffical use I'd wager that the manufacturer is not the copyright holder of the image. Any official works should have a governmental copyright.
- Reproduction of military photographs where individual(s) are wearing crests or patches: if the badge is out of copyright that obviously doesn't matter. If it is still copyrighted you need to weigh whether the patch is the main object of the photo, e.g. by focusing on the patch instead of showing the entire person; if you have a photo showing only a zoom on a person's shoulder and the patch upon it, then this is a derivative work and it must not be uploaded. If the patch itself is really small compared the rest of what is shown in the image then that's called de minimis and you're free to upload the image IF the photograph itself has a free licence.
- The use of Disney characters on crests and patches: I don't know what kind of deal there was between Disney and the military but usually this would've been a case of copyright infringement. I guess though most servicemen simply didn't care about that when they used Donald Duck as nose art on their aircraft etc.
- Subsequent use by others, credit to image: usually copyright cannot be transferred so it's the original artist that needs to be credited as the author. See also my remark about ownership.
- I hope this was a bit helpful to you, but you might also want to ask the folks at WP:MILHIST for more input. De728631 (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Music video with a collage of album covers as background.
I am interested in shooting a music video. We want the background to be a collage of approximately 80 different album covers. is this breaking any copyright laws?
Also, if we were to use that collage of these different album covers as the background in a photo, and then use that photo as an album cover for our music, would this break copyright laws?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenny Cash real (talk • contribs) 00:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- We can not give you legal advice. You need to go talk to a lawyer. GB fan 00:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Publicity photographs
What's the current Wikipedia status of publicity photographs? My understanding is that they are assumed to be copyrighted and should be treated as a non-free image, but the editor Light show (formerly Wikiwatcher1) seems to believe that they are images which can be freely used. Which is correct? BMK (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Fully copyrighted. Werieth (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- If that represents the consensus here, then perhaps an admin should tell Light show that, and deal with the publicity images he has uploaded as free, such as File:Busby Berkeley - 1942.jpg and File:Mary Tyler Moore - 1978.jpg among many others. BMK (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- They are all certainly not fully copyrighted. A good deal of photos from that era have not been renewed. Connormah (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: I thought you where talking about current publicity shots. Given that the images in question where published when different copyright laws applied most of the files that are being uploaded are out of copyright due to copyright law quirks. Anything after 1978 does require more of a review though. Werieth (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- An out-of-copyright publicity photo would not be a "quirk," but an oxymoron. As many of the leading experts in film still explain clearly, before 1989, publicity photos taken to promote a film actor or other celebrity were not usually copyrighted. Nimmer on Copyright, the leading copyright textbook, explains that publicity photos were "sent off to newspapers before the film’s release, in order to generate a buzz about its opening." They were taken to publicize the actor, not sell their photos. They were generally printed by the thousands and sent to every small and large newspaper or magazine, as part of press (publicity) kits, like this one, with the express desire for the publication to write up a story and use whatever photos they want. The movie industry makes their money from selling tickets, not photographs, and copyrighting them would achieve the exact opposite of what they want. Imagine a magazine getting a Press release with publicity photos that has a copyright on it, warning the magazine not to copy the photo or text. Not on this planet. --Light show (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Almost every statement in this comment is incorrect. The images were routinely copyrighted -- in order to control misuse and to have a legal ground for recourse should misuse occur -- and freely licensed to those who received them for use in publications. Justr as now, with the licenses we use, the copyright is not wiped out by the license, it is maintained. As is normal, copyrights which have run out are no longer valid, but that's not the same thing, and, again, our policy requires proof that the images weren't renewed. BMK (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comments here re: Busby Berkeley don't need to be repeated. You're statement that publicity photos were "routinely copyrighted" is the opposite of fact. --Light show (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, they clearly do need to be repeated, as you obstinately refuse to accept that they are fact. Your interpretation of copyright law is, actually, quite bizarre, and, in any event, unsupported by Wikipedia policy, which says that a work is presumed to be copyrighted unless it can be shown not to be. You want it to be the other way -- actually, I wouldn't mind that either, but it remains the case that no matter how many academics you quote regarding their assumptions or deductions regarding the copyright status of publicity photos, it has little or nothing to do with our policy, which requires positive evidence of lack of copyright, not theories or assumptions. BMK (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- That supports what I said there, that "Wikipedia ignores U.S. copyright law." In fact, WP doesn't even recognize U.S. Fair use law, simply because it doesn't exist in Europe. And as I once suggested, those policies are undermining U.S. law to the serious detriment of American WP readers. As a Commons admin explained, Copyright registration doesn't exist in Europe and there is no such thing as "renewing" a copyright. A copyright notice has no legal meaning (except for old Polish photos.) Simply because Europe lacked clear copyright laws like those, why should that weakness be forced onto another continent? Isn't Wikipedia a U.S. entity? --Light show (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Once again, your concepts are beyond bizarre. One cannot "undermine" a law by following a standard that is more strict than the law. U.S. law, for instance, differentiates between murder and manslaughter, based on motive. If a religious group rejects that difference and condemns both murder and manslaughter, and throws out any member who kills another person, even if in self-defense, their stance doesn't "undermine" the law, it simply upholds a stricter standard for its members, something that has no relationship to the law at all. In a lighter example, think of the advertisements for kosher hot dogs, which trumpeted the fact that they didn't use the filler allowed by U.S. pure food regulations because they had to "answer to a higher power". Making hot dogs that had less crap in them then allowed by law doesn't "undermine" the U.S. regulations, it's just being stricter. In exactly the same way, the WMF is under no legal or moral obligation to follow American fair use concepts - they are allowed to set a stricter standard for use of images on their private website, and doing so doesn't "undermine the law" in any way shape or form.
I don't know where you're getting your ideas from, but they're very strange, and very, very wrong. BMK (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sticking to photos, I said "those policies are undermining U.S. law to the serious detriment of American WP readers." An example: if a good PD photo of a person is available, based on U.S. law, but WP's stricter requirements mean it's non-free, then the person's bio won't include it. The photo that would normally be available as PD to U.S. readers, can not be seen due to some other country's or organization's stricter policy. By U.S. law, then, a photo may be totally legal to display or reuse, but by overriding that law, the photo is blocked. I call that "undermining," but that's just my term. --Light show (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Once again, your concepts are beyond bizarre. One cannot "undermine" a law by following a standard that is more strict than the law. U.S. law, for instance, differentiates between murder and manslaughter, based on motive. If a religious group rejects that difference and condemns both murder and manslaughter, and throws out any member who kills another person, even if in self-defense, their stance doesn't "undermine" the law, it simply upholds a stricter standard for its members, something that has no relationship to the law at all. In a lighter example, think of the advertisements for kosher hot dogs, which trumpeted the fact that they didn't use the filler allowed by U.S. pure food regulations because they had to "answer to a higher power". Making hot dogs that had less crap in them then allowed by law doesn't "undermine" the U.S. regulations, it's just being stricter. In exactly the same way, the WMF is under no legal or moral obligation to follow American fair use concepts - they are allowed to set a stricter standard for use of images on their private website, and doing so doesn't "undermine the law" in any way shape or form.
- That supports what I said there, that "Wikipedia ignores U.S. copyright law." In fact, WP doesn't even recognize U.S. Fair use law, simply because it doesn't exist in Europe. And as I once suggested, those policies are undermining U.S. law to the serious detriment of American WP readers. As a Commons admin explained, Copyright registration doesn't exist in Europe and there is no such thing as "renewing" a copyright. A copyright notice has no legal meaning (except for old Polish photos.) Simply because Europe lacked clear copyright laws like those, why should that weakness be forced onto another continent? Isn't Wikipedia a U.S. entity? --Light show (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, they clearly do need to be repeated, as you obstinately refuse to accept that they are fact. Your interpretation of copyright law is, actually, quite bizarre, and, in any event, unsupported by Wikipedia policy, which says that a work is presumed to be copyrighted unless it can be shown not to be. You want it to be the other way -- actually, I wouldn't mind that either, but it remains the case that no matter how many academics you quote regarding their assumptions or deductions regarding the copyright status of publicity photos, it has little or nothing to do with our policy, which requires positive evidence of lack of copyright, not theories or assumptions. BMK (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comments here re: Busby Berkeley don't need to be repeated. You're statement that publicity photos were "routinely copyrighted" is the opposite of fact. --Light show (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Almost every statement in this comment is incorrect. The images were routinely copyrighted -- in order to control misuse and to have a legal ground for recourse should misuse occur -- and freely licensed to those who received them for use in publications. Justr as now, with the licenses we use, the copyright is not wiped out by the license, it is maintained. As is normal, copyrights which have run out are no longer valid, but that's not the same thing, and, again, our policy requires proof that the images weren't renewed. BMK (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- An out-of-copyright publicity photo would not be a "quirk," but an oxymoron. As many of the leading experts in film still explain clearly, before 1989, publicity photos taken to promote a film actor or other celebrity were not usually copyrighted. Nimmer on Copyright, the leading copyright textbook, explains that publicity photos were "sent off to newspapers before the film’s release, in order to generate a buzz about its opening." They were taken to publicize the actor, not sell their photos. They were generally printed by the thousands and sent to every small and large newspaper or magazine, as part of press (publicity) kits, like this one, with the express desire for the publication to write up a story and use whatever photos they want. The movie industry makes their money from selling tickets, not photographs, and copyrighting them would achieve the exact opposite of what they want. Imagine a magazine getting a Press release with publicity photos that has a copyright on it, warning the magazine not to copy the photo or text. Not on this planet. --Light show (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- If that represents the consensus here, then perhaps an admin should tell Light show that, and deal with the publicity images he has uploaded as free, such as File:Busby Berkeley - 1942.jpg and File:Mary Tyler Moore - 1978.jpg among many others. BMK (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly right - because we want to make sure end users can reuse content, we need absolute assurance that when an image is free it really is. Publicity photos did often lack the copyright notice on fore-and-back side of photos, but that is not a universal truth, and as such we still require explicit evidence that the photo was published without copyright notice by providing the front AND back of the photo. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) @Light show: Incidentally, your take on European copyright laws is also very wrong. Until very recently, it was the U.S. that had less strict copyright protection because it refused to sign the Berne Convention. And way back in our history, we did not recognize any work that wasn't specifically copyrighted here as being protected in any way at all, and publishers routinely put out the work of European writers without compensating them -- the writers had to travel here (at their own expense) and negotiate some kind of royalty, with the promise of quick access to future works.
You seem to believe that Europe is some kind of slacker where it comes to copyright, which is very much not the case. Again, where the hell do you get these wierd notions from?
- (ec) @Light show: Incidentally, your take on European copyright laws is also very wrong. Until very recently, it was the U.S. that had less strict copyright protection because it refused to sign the Berne Convention. And way back in our history, we did not recognize any work that wasn't specifically copyrighted here as being protected in any way at all, and publishers routinely put out the work of European writers without compensating them -- the writers had to travel here (at their own expense) and negotiate some kind of royalty, with the promise of quick access to future works.
- Exactly right - because we want to make sure end users can reuse content, we need absolute assurance that when an image is free it really is. Publicity photos did often lack the copyright notice on fore-and-back side of photos, but that is not a universal truth, and as such we still require explicit evidence that the photo was published without copyright notice by providing the front AND back of the photo. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's take a trip down memory lane from last year when User:Masem, User:Howcheng, User:Ww2censor and yours truly last had this discussion with this user. Masem stated then, as BMK does here, that proof of the PD status is needed. Here's a photo that's at PUF File:Godfather stars.jpg This is a copy of the photo that's genuinely from Paramount and it has a 1972 copyright on it with permssion for reproduction granted to print media (magazines & newspapers). Here's another copy from Paramount from 1997 with the same rider allowing print media to reproduce the photo. When files have authors listed like "TV studio", "movie studio" and "unknown", the true origin of the photo isn't known and things like this will keep happening (as they have here and at Commons) again, and again and again. We hope (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Memory lane has negative connotations, when I recall that you deleted around 100 to 200 photos because you were unaware of and unconcerned with rampant copyfraud (ref: [2]), although you had no problem relying on the same U.S. laws for your own image rationales. --Light show (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- And you're still using the same old diff that you were last year. My explanation for the removal of the unneeded text is the same now as it was then--I was advised it wasn't needed, so I began removing it from my uploads. I stand by my DRs. Before you were blocked from Commons, you had ample opportunity to request undeletions with proof that supported your argument and were able to present your argument at the DRs. We hope (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- It wasn't needed because it was probably common knowledge at that point. As for arguing at Commons, I did when I had time. But there was no way to keep up with your Corbis hunt-and-tag, continual ignoring of copyfraud, or mass deletions. --Light show (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Being super careful on copyrights to the point where we state that we think someone may own copyright on a work when really it may be free, is no way considered copyfraud, it's simply being cautious. We would not be making any gain (monetary or otherwise) by being cautious. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Copyfraud exists when a company, like Corbis, buys up collections of millions of PD vintage photos, creates a website to sell copies, and sticks a copyright notice on each photo, when they own no copyrights to those images. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is a recent case. --Light show (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, copyfraud exists and we should do our best to try to find true ownership/affirmation something is PD instead of copyrighted. Sometimes that is impossible to do, and if we can't accurately tell the difference between copyfraud and a true copyright issue we are going to err on the side of considering the work copyrighted. For WP, that harms nothing, no cat is let out of the bag, as opposed to the case by mistagging something as PD when really it should be copyrighted. We are going to take the very cautious path for copyright determination, and can't work on broad assumptions. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Copyfraud exists when a company, like Corbis, buys up collections of millions of PD vintage photos, creates a website to sell copies, and sticks a copyright notice on each photo, when they own no copyrights to those images. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is a recent case. --Light show (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Being super careful on copyrights to the point where we state that we think someone may own copyright on a work when really it may be free, is no way considered copyfraud, it's simply being cautious. We would not be making any gain (monetary or otherwise) by being cautious. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- It wasn't needed because it was probably common knowledge at that point. As for arguing at Commons, I did when I had time. But there was no way to keep up with your Corbis hunt-and-tag, continual ignoring of copyfraud, or mass deletions. --Light show (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- And you're still using the same old diff that you were last year. My explanation for the removal of the unneeded text is the same now as it was then--I was advised it wasn't needed, so I began removing it from my uploads. I stand by my DRs. Before you were blocked from Commons, you had ample opportunity to request undeletions with proof that supported your argument and were able to present your argument at the DRs. We hope (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Light show's analysis is simplistic, and simply wrong. While "older publicity stills have usually not been copyrighted" may be an accurate statement, it also acknowledges that a substantial percentage of those photos were copyrighted. Our NFCC policies require that public domain status be established on a case-by-case basis. For every purportedly "public domain" photo, the uploader must establish, with reasonable certainty. the fact of publication, the time frame/date of publication, the jurisdiction where the image was published, and the fact that (for US publication) the image did not carry the required copyright notice. Far too often, Light show's uploads fail these requirements. That's why they've been indef-blocked at commons. A perfect example of Light show's unacceptable uploads is File:Bob Fosse - 1980s.jpg, uploaded about 24 hours ago. Although the source (an ebay listing) and the image itself provide absolutely no information concerning any publication of the image, and the source identifies the image as having been taken sometime in the 1980s, Light show blithely asserts that the image is public domain as a pre-1978 publication without copyright notice, which requires us to believe it was published years before it was taken. This is hardly a rare occurrence; as their talk page evidences [3], Light show rather profligately uploaded nonfree images to Commons with PD claims; with their privileges at Commons suspended, they're just repeating their failures on en-wiki. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Date fixed. --Light show (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- And how do you know that your current assertion - "This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published in the U.S. between 1978 and March 1, 1989, and a substantial number of authorized copies were distributed to the public without a copyright notice, and where the copyright was not later registered." - is true? Where was it published, or how was it distributed? Where did you search for copyright registration? You have the same issue you have always seem to have - you presume it all to be free, and the particulars do not trouble you. This is why one of the WMF attorneys advised you to get such details as reported here. This is the opposite of recommended practice on Wikipedia - our copyright policy says "You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain." You simply assume that if a picture appears to have been taken in a certain date, it's free. Look at File:Kirk Douglas family - 1947.jpg. You can see the copyright notice underneath the label somebody has attached to the back of the photograph - the purple text? This is the photographer's standard copyright stamp. (See also [4] and [5].) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Since you haven't done anything to address this issue since it was pointed out to you, User:Light show, I've listed it at WP:PUF, specifically here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- And how do you know that your current assertion - "This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published in the U.S. between 1978 and March 1, 1989, and a substantial number of authorized copies were distributed to the public without a copyright notice, and where the copyright was not later registered." - is true? Where was it published, or how was it distributed? Where did you search for copyright registration? You have the same issue you have always seem to have - you presume it all to be free, and the particulars do not trouble you. This is why one of the WMF attorneys advised you to get such details as reported here. This is the opposite of recommended practice on Wikipedia - our copyright policy says "You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain." You simply assume that if a picture appears to have been taken in a certain date, it's free. Look at File:Kirk Douglas family - 1947.jpg. You can see the copyright notice underneath the label somebody has attached to the back of the photograph - the purple text? This is the photographer's standard copyright stamp. (See also [4] and [5].) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
![[4]](http://web.archive.org/web/20140613200601/http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMzA5/z/NH8AAOxy3zNSfa8Y/$%28KGrHqRHJC!FJoHbfBhbBSf,8Y,CJQ~~60_57.JPG){kind=link}
It's apparent to me that Light show understands neither copyright law nor Wikipedia's NFCC policy, and that his labeling of images is simply gaming the system in order to upload images he wishes to use. It seems high time that a topic ban on anything to do with images ought to be considered. BMK (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- As BMK said, I'm afraid I don't see how anything short of an image topic ban will solve the issues. The CCI opened in 2011 gets larger, not smaller, with these uploads, an RFC/U was done in 2012 to no avail, and last November, the user was blocked at Commons for continuing copyright violations. The topic ban ought to solve another annoying issue of the user's doing "drive-by" changes to infobox photos, replacing those in the infobox with his recent uploads. The article history at Carroll O'Connor shows where the user added a photo which was deleted for insufficient proof of its being PD. On deletion, the article infobox has no photo. The "drive-by" changes are a pattern and can also be seen at Talk:Mary_Tyler_Moore#RfC_for_lead_image where an RFC over the questionable photo was briefly started, and at Talk:Mike_Todd#Consensus_to_change_infobox_photo, but there are many other instances of this. Having the infobox photo changed and then deleted for copyright issues looks bad for Wikipedia and has to be troubling to those who work and have worked hard at writing articles. We hope (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Light show: Just read what I wrote on this same topic 6 months ago. Provide verifiable evidence or just stop. At least some uploaders of similar image attempt to provide evidence by showing the back of photos that do not have a copyright statement on the front like the examples above. And most of those back images show there is no copyright notice so the uploader can verifiably claim {{PD-Pre1978}}, if appropriate but you don't bother, you just claim they are freely licenced and argue about it, wasting all our time again. We are all volunteers here and have more constructive things to do that rehash the same arguments that never seem to pernetrate your brain. ww2censor (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Is this a "publicity photo? Should it be used here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm very unclear about how you can state, "at least some uploaders of similar images attempt to provide evidence by showing the back of photos . . . but you don't bother," when anyone can see that's not the case. And they're shown despite going against the Precautionary principle, considered an official policy. --Light show (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I can see exactly what ww2censor is talking about--none of these have any backs uploaded here.
- We hope (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- When a photo already has printed details on the front, as in Stewart-Hepburn, on the list, it's obvious that any notice would have been printed there. For a few rare ones, the seller confirmed to me a number of times that they only show the reverse when there's something printed there, even if only a scribble. You and MRG must have a forensics dept. devoted to finding and deleting all these star "head shots." Now that WP has become the world's leading depository of porn-related bios, images, and videos, maybe more images of "giving head" would be more readily appreciated. Slight digression. --Light show (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Appended: From the above list, all except one had the publisher, subject, and/or description details printed on the front. The one of Koner was confirmed by the seller to be blank on the reverse. As pointed out in the CCI, many of the deleted images prior to it being opened by MRG and We hope, were from "blitz-tagging." I inquired about such behavior at the Copyright forum and a few months later at the village pump, making it clear that "blitz-tagging" undermined any ability of remedying any actual problems due to reasons explained years ago by others, and coincidentally, about the same tagging editor. I believe that most (around 50) of the deleted images were a result of that kind of mass tagging, seemingly bot-automated over a few minutes, using the same erroneous rationale. That was before We hope proceeded to tag about 200 images by ignoring "copyfraud" notices, despite it being brought to his attention. That kind of arbitrary mass tagging] has continued with little opposition. And an attempt to gain explanations from the Commons gets one blocked. --Light show (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- When a photo already has printed details on the front, as in Stewart-Hepburn, on the list, it's obvious that any notice would have been printed there. For a few rare ones, the seller confirmed to me a number of times that they only show the reverse when there's something printed there, even if only a scribble. You and MRG must have a forensics dept. devoted to finding and deleting all these star "head shots." Now that WP has become the world's leading depository of porn-related bios, images, and videos, maybe more images of "giving head" would be more readily appreciated. Slight digression. --Light show (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- We hope (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- As noted above, the laws regarding copyright were totally different for the U.S. and Europe until 1989, a basic fact that is repeatedly ignored. The amazing irony is that Wikipedia relies on U.S. copyright law for most of its primary image licenses, ie. PD-US-1989, PD-Pre1978, PD-Pre1964 and PD-anon-1923, among them. It's a very negative policy, IMO, to use the only clear copyright laws available, those of the U.S., then delete images based on Europe's different, mostly unwritten, laws. Maybe that's why for movie publicity images, all of the leading experts and cases are based on U.S. law. --Light show (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Another mass deletion added a few minutes ago. This one with a novel rationale: "what little information we have is equally consistent, if not more so, with their being photographers' file copies." Yet they have the name of the studio, as this one, and as explained here, the photographers worked for the studios as employees, and seldom had their name included. All the photos are sold by a professional dealer of "vintage and original" photos. These deletions continue to be totally arbitrary. --Light show (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- It may be extremely common, but it is not a universal truth, and we can't play that game with copyright of distributed photos. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, ok, so occasionally Light show, you have provided images of the back of such publicity stills. However, if you don't provide a back image we cannot know for sure there is nothing of importance on it and we just have your say so, or that of an ebay seller but still no actual verification of the copyright status. By now you have heard the guidelines explained several times so you should know them quite well and I'm sure you are well able to do the necessary or just not upload those images whose status you cannot prove. Movie publicity stills were provided to cinemas and sometimes they have gummed stickers, or Sellotaped paper notices attached, on the back giving details of the subject and occasionally copyright notices. It's quite simple really, provide verification of the copyright status or don't upload them. ww2censor (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support topic ban - we haven't even caught up on all the problems from the last User name as seen at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1. Now we have many many many more image people will have to look at. Ban from commons and still an gong investigation - beyond me why this person is allowed to upload at all. -- Moxy (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support. BMK suggested it, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), ww2censor, MASEM and Moonriddengirl have basically said this needs to stop as it's wrong. Yesterday more of the user's files were deleted at PUF; two were infobox photos: for John Barrymore and Walter Matthau. For the Walter Matthau article, this was the second time an infobox photo uploaded by the user was deleted. The one before this was deleted in March 2014 after being in the article since May 2013. Continually losing infobox photos to copyvios isn't good for WP's image. There are a lot more files to be tagged--see above where some don't have uploaded backs. As above, the CCI started in 2011, the RFC/U in 2012 and the Commons ban in 2013, but we still have uploads that wind up being deleted as copyvios. There just seems to be no other way to put an end to the problems. We hope (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Nowhere in this saga has the user done anything except blame others for what's happened--at the CCI, the RFC/U or the Commons block. The WMF rules for images are no secret and have been discussed with the user both here and at Commons time and again, but the same type of uploads have been going on, with the user contending he's the only one who's right, everyone else is wrong and he's being persecuted. We hope (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support. BMK suggested it, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), ww2censor, MASEM and Moonriddengirl have basically said this needs to stop as it's wrong. Yesterday more of the user's files were deleted at PUF; two were infobox photos: for John Barrymore and Walter Matthau. For the Walter Matthau article, this was the second time an infobox photo uploaded by the user was deleted. The one before this was deleted in March 2014 after being in the article since May 2013. Continually losing infobox photos to copyvios isn't good for WP's image. There are a lot more files to be tagged--see above where some don't have uploaded backs. As above, the CCI started in 2011, the RFC/U in 2012 and the Commons ban in 2013, but we still have uploads that wind up being deleted as copyvios. There just seems to be no other way to put an end to the problems. We hope (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not quite yet, but . . . Light show/Wikiwatcher has been industrious in turning up potentially valuable images, yet nearly as insistent that his repeatedly-rejected notions about how to prove an image is PD are valid. I've just opened an FFD discussion about his recent burst of inappropriate uploads at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_June_20#File:Cybill_Shepherd_-_1973.jpg, which I hope will make clear to LS that his approach is not accepted by the community. If they don't accept the community determination (and I'm aware that they didn't accept the parallel Commons action), or participate inappropriately in the FFD, I'd say they've wasted a last chance and propose the topic ban at AN (or is it ANI?) myself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- File:Anne Bancroft - 1956.jpg This file is also at PUF as there's copyright information on the photo back. We hope (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- A search noted there was not only no renewal, but that the photographer, Bert Six, has no copyrights registered, new or renewals, since 1978. I'd be amazed if you could find any publicity photo by Bert Six that has ever been registered. --Light show (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- File:Anne Bancroft - 1956.jpg This file is also at PUF as there's copyright information on the photo back. We hope (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The Warner film was renewed in 1983; Six was working for Warner.
Type of Work: Motion Picture Registration Number / Date: RE0000192954 / 1983-12-29 Renewal registration for: LP0000006379 / 1955-03-19 Title: New York confidential. By Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc. We hope (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- You're aware, I assume, that film copyrights have no bearing on photograph copyrights. See Sellers photo and subsequent explanation here. --Light show (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- And you're aware that anything with a copyright notice can't be licensed as having no copyright markings. We hope (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to argue the point, but the copyright was essentially invalid. It had Ann Sheridan's name after the date, and it's doubtful she owned the copyright or the notice was intended for her. A lot of the old stills had the person's name imprinted as an identifier somewhere. --Light show (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- And you're aware that anything with a copyright notice can't be licensed as having no copyright markings. We hope (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Re: AN or AN/I? If the topic bsn comes out of a general behavior pattern, then AN is the proper place. If, however, there is a particular incident reported at AN/I, and the discussion naturally segues into the question of a topic ban, it can stay at AN/I and doesn't need to be moved to AN. That's been the general practice. BMK (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Publicity photos not registered and not renewed
Here are a few statistics that some might find interesting. Since 1942 was a typical year for the golden age of films, I took a look at the U.S. copyright catalogue for 28 years later, 1970, which is when a renewal would have been filed. In 1970, there were 16,592 original registrations for "Artwork and photographs." Of those, 906 were for published photographs. There were only 251 total "renewals" that year, which is about 1.5% of original filings. Estimating that 1.5% of the 906 photos were renewals, that would be 14 photos renewed in 1970.
If anyone cares to look at the few pages of renewals for that year, they'll find no publicity or press photos, or anything close to that. The implication is that publicity photos were rarely, if ever, registered, and most likely never renewed if they were. Unless our forensics team can show otherwise, it's reasonable to assume that pre-1964 publicity photos were not renewed, and finding out for sure is not that hard. In the past, for some pre-1964 photos with notices that looked valuable to WP, I simply did a search. --Light show (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Once again, as we've said before, we cannot go on assumptions that may accidentally put non-free as a PD. This is why we have continued to ask for positive proof of where these came from and assurance there's no copyright tag on them, to avoid putting WP at risk. It is a dangerous game to assume otherwise. --MASEM (t) 06:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Problem: If a press photo was created for the sole purpose of being published in a newspaper, then that photo would presumably be covered by the newspaper's renewal. If you wish to upload a photograph from that newspaper, then you still have to identify the newspaper on the file information page (even if it is not available in the information you have access to) and show that the newspaper wasn't renewed. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's only an issue where the photo was taken by a particular newspaper's staff photographer, thereby being a work for hire. Most papers will simply buy single-use rights from news agencies, such as Associated Press, for local event images if they don't have the staff, and as We Hope learned from his research, those agencies did not include notices, registrations, and obviously not renewals. However, most publicity photos were taken by the studios in house and sent to any publication as part of press kits, and were not photos for news stories. At issue here is the status of primarily portrait-type publicity photos, like these currently tagged for deletion. --Light show (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I don't license a photo from a magazine, newspaper or news agency as PD-copyright not renewed or PD-pre 1978 unless I have researched the status of the photo and included my findings on the file page. We need to go back here for a discussion of the research of the Library of Congress regarding post-1963 Associated Press and UPI photos. The library's legal team found for both "However, the Library’s legal office has advised the Division that photographs published with proper copyright notices between 1923-1963 may be protected if properly renewed, while works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office." We currently have some post-1963 AP photos uploaded by this user with PD notices.
- File:Tim Rice - 1981.jpg
- File:Robby Benson - 1980 promo.jpg
- File:Angie Dickinson - 1982.jpg
- File:Marcel Marceau - AP 1974.jpg
- File:Treat Williams - 1982.jpg
So if the LOC's lawyers can't advise that the post-1963 wire service photos are in the PD even if they're not registered with the Copyright Office, how is this user able to determine that they are and to license them as PD for WP? We hope (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Simple. Even a photo that was not officially registered, may be protected if it had a copyright notice. But while the situation hasn't been an issue, it's also worth realizing, as mentioned here, that even with a notice, the owner is allowed only 5 years to file (and pay for) their formal registration. If they don't, there is no longer a presumption that they own the copyright, and a user is no longer at any risk for using it. --Light show (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's also worth considering that File:George C. Scott - UPI 1972.JPG, File:Sharon Tate 1965.JPG, File:Jerry Lewis - directing - 1969.JPG, File:Rod Stewart - 1971.JPG, File:Sellers - Hawn 1970.JPG, File:Mick jagger 1981.JPG, all post-1963 UPI photos, bit the dust at Commons, despite your uncited argument. We hope (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}? Useddenim (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes it is. --MASEM (t) 02:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this [6] Image public domain? I'm pretty sure it must be, but am not sure. --75* 22:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
![[6]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ud0eGy-siWI/UfcfLBDbOFI/AAAAAAAADs8/dbfTFQddXT8/s1600/Death+of+War.jpg){kind=link}
- That looks like a better copy of this illustration from the book Heros of the Drak Continent by J.W Buel published in 1890 in Canada, so you can upload it to the commons and {{PD-1923}} applies. However, this version describes the image completely differently and is attributed differently as well. Here is another version that looks very like your. ww2censor (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- For Commons, you will need to look for the original country of publication and the death dates of the artists who had a part in the creation of this image. Clearly, the image was meant to illustrate the death of Garnier in 1873. The troops, on the left of the image, trying to come to the aid of Garnier, are dressed in the 19th-century uniform of the French sailors and Marines. Another version of this illustration was drawn by Dick de Lonlay (pseudonym of Georges Hardouin, 1846-1893) and published in 1888 in the book Le Tonkin, Exploration du Mékong: image on Gallica (from the second edition, 1890). Your image is an illustration with the same main elements, with different details, and signed by A. Ferdinandus and another person. It may have been published in the 1870s or 1880s in one of the French newspapers or books to which A. Ferdinandus provided illustrations, but I did not find it with a quick search. And I did not find biographical informations about that illustrator, but that name sounds like it could be a pseudonym. Apparently, the U.S. and Canadian publishers of Heroes of the Dark Continent respectively in 1889 and 1990 thought it was a good idea to reuse the illustration about the death of Garnier and legend it with a caption about the death of Ward. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- So, how would I upload that? I really can't figure out how to turn that into an upload, because I have no experience with images. --75* 22:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- First, do you still want to upload it, seeing that this copy was an out-of-context reuse of an image that doesn't have to do with Ward? If so, did you search and find the year and country of the first publication of the image and the death dates of the authors? Well, this image was published to illustrate a text by F. Romanet du Caillaud, La conquête du delta du Tong-King, in the periodical Le tour du monde, published in 1877 (vol. XXXIV), page 315. See Cornell or Google. Three names are mentioned on the page. The caption reads: "Mort de M. Francis Garnier. - Dessin de A. Ferdinandus, d'après un croquis de M. P***." (Death of Mr. Francis Garnier. - Drawing by A. Ferdinandus, after a sketch by M. P***). The image itself bears the signature of A. Ferdinandus and in the other corner is the name Barbant (the engraver?). As expected, Alexandre Ferdinandus was a pseudonym, that of Fernand Avenet, who died in 1888. The file will probably be ok if you upload it to Commons, with the templates PD-1923 and PD-old-100. It is probably better if you upload the version from the Cornell website instead of the version from the Blogspot website, unless you precisely want to illustrate an example of misuse of an image with a wrong caption by a careless publisher. Not sure if your last question was still only about the copyright aspect or about the procedure for uploading. For the technicalities of uploading, please see the help pages on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
National library of Scotland old maps
I've asked this before, but it's worth raising again. The National Library of Scotland's map department has put a large collection of 19th century mapping of London online, which has got sufficiently high resolution detail to be useful as pictures for individual buildings. The letter of the law (my emphasis) I have received from here is that this is PD because it is work produced before 1923. But the disclaimer here states "The high-quality scans of the maps are Copyright National Library of Scotland, even though the source material itself is out of copyright. The coverage map includes data from Ordnance Survey Open Data which retains its Crown Copyright."
Even if this is PD, and we are on safe legal ground, is it worth the risk of making the library upset at the WMF just because we can copy their work without asking and get away with it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- The high-quality scans of the maps are copyright under Scottish law so cannot be used. United States law regarding images of old maps is different but irrelevant in Scotland. --Racklever (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- I faced a very similar dilemma when writing John Rocque's Map of London, 1746 (see its talk) and I decided to ask the republisher for permission. I didn't get a final answer but I think it would have been a "no". I had hoped he would have seen WP as a good advert for his image sales. I ended up using inferior scans. Now, I'm in the UK and someone in the US may be on stronger legal ground. My feeling is that the UK copyright claim is lawful. At WP we seem very keen to delete images on the slightest possibility of uncertainty of the US legal position and not at all keen to delete on anything approaching ethical grounds. I think a bit of use under "fair use" may indeed be fair but I decided to not even do that. However, I do come across bits of these scans even on Commons. Regarding Scottish law as mentioned above, I think this would only affect uploading to Commons and WP would not consider Scottish law. Thincat (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- We still (just) have a Wikiped in Residence there. Why not ask them? See Wikipedia:GLAM/National Library of Scotland. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) Thanks. The Rocque map was one of the examples I was thinking of. About two years ago I nominated a map image for G12 speedy deletion on similar grounds, and it was declined. So, being slightly pointy, I created File:M11 link road protest map.png for another article. The PD rationale has held steady for about 18 months and it's flagged as eligible for transfer to Commons. And that's a map from 1960. In the meantime I'll ping @ACrockford:, the NLS wikipedian in residence, to this discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Good. I'd like to hear what transpires one way or another. It occurs to me even Commons might accept uploads in disregard of the law in the source country taking them to be faithful reproductions of PD art. Commons and WMF were certainly willing to upset the National Portrait Gallery several years ago. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#The position of the WMF. Thincat (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Glancing at the somewhat parallel discussion immediately below, a difference with some (but not all) map scans is that they have been georeferenced, that is distorted so they can accurately overlay a present day (Google) map. That is not done merely by applying a mathematical algorithm and may be to some extent creative. This certainly makes it not a faithful reproduction, and deliberately so. Whether the modification attracts US copyright or whether it means WMF policy does not apply, I don't know. There is an interesting article here. Thincat (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
