Infrastructure tools to support an effective radiation oncology learning health system

At Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Congressional_charter there is a discussion going on regarding the applicability of a section of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) charter, specifically 36 United States Code § 30905 which says "The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights." One of the contributors to the thread is insistent that this section of US Code implies copyright, and therefore all badges of the BSA are protected by copyright in perpetuity. I have attempted to apprise the editor of copyright law, with reference to things such as this reference, and noting that the BSA charter can not trump copyright law.

Some other eyes, please. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything at the wikilink. The charter certainly could trump copyright law; Congress has passed a number of copyright laws extending the copyright on just one work. (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures#1971 to date, for example.) I suspect it's more a trademark rule then a copyright one, but it's not real clear about what it does cover.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A photo (one that's probably usable under fair use anyway) seems to be in the public domain because it seems to be U.S. Federal work product, because it seems to be by a Congressional committee or its staff from one political party ("House Committee on Education and the Workforce Democrats" according to the Flickr page, as accessed March 23, 2013). However, the Flickr page that features the photo says some rights are reserved (e.g., noncommercial use only and no derivation (per tooltips)). I don't know if someone was unable to assert rights until after the photo was in the public domain, making such an assertion invalid, or if reserving rights that don't exist is equivalent to not reserving rights; if either case applies, the photo is a free image. It's the only possibly free image I know of that shows the person (this is for an article about her, which has no image now), and I'd like to at least crop it, which I think constitutes derivation. Does anyone know if the photo is in the public domain? Nick Levinson (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear who necessary is taking the pictures. It may be that they have some photographer doing work-for-hire during these sessions, so he's not necessarily a government employee but selling the photos to the committee to use there, thus not making them PD-US Gov as you hoped. But it's not clear what is the true case here. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I wonder if it would have been possible to take that picture without being in a restricted Federal space, viz., not where any member of the public could stand, but maybe that's not relevant and at any rate I don't know if the space where the photographer might have been while taking the photo is sometimes open. So I'll be cautious and expect to use the photo under the fair-use doctrine or not at all. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You did not say what article you will use the image in. We don't actually use images under the fair-use doctrine because we have a stricter policy for non-free images that must comply with all 10 of the non-free content policy. If you intend to use it for an article about Eva Moskowitz that would be unacceptable: a freely licenced image can be made because she is living. Determining its copyright status would be the best plan. ww2censor (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. I hadn't gotten to checking criteria because I didn't have an image to upload and so I didn't need to check the template for a fair use authorization yet, but I might have missed that criterion, since I don't expect to have a chance to create (take) a picture of her. I'll likely try again to establish that the particular image from Congress is available for use in Wikipedia or do without an image. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC) (Corrected a link: 15:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC))

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/72853_355572397880041_578897638_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillodwiki (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the copyright of the image on this page: http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?client=1-1148-0-0-0&sID=228617&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=17680155 Revolution1221 (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually we don't know but without specific proof that the image is freely licenced we have to assume it is copyright to someone, most likely to sportingpulse.com, because we err on the side of caution. This webpage clearly shows an "All rights reserved" statement which may well apply to the whole site. Its absence on other pages does not mean the content is not copyright. ww2censor (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

https://patrishka.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/sylvia-plathher-life-in-photographs/aurelia-and-otto-plath-with-sylvia-1933/

I would like to use this photograph in the article Otto Plath, but I am unsure about its copyright status. It appears to be a family photograph, so do any copyright laws apply here? --Philpill691 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It would depend on who took the picture, what the copyright laws of Syria were at the time, and when and where the photographs were first published; and in the latter case, on where they were first published. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Syria? --Philpill691 (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Gaahhh! Sorry; misread the captions as "Photos from Syria" rather than "Photos with Sylvia". In that case, substitute whatever country these photos were taken in. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a comparable problem with keep reading "lunch" when "launches" of various sorts appear in press reports, but I put that down to greed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Would a graph of Google search statistics from Google Trends be usable, or is this information copyrighted? --Philpill691 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have a few questions on User Talk: Ida1925. The page shows file copyright problem with the following files:

• File:Voscice beach and Turan edited.JPG
• File:Voscice_beach_and_Turan_top_center004.jpg
• File:Voscice_beach_and_Turan_edited.JPG
• File:Overlooking the cement factory from Pripogni.jpg
• File:Voscice beach and Turan.jpg

My question is; What do I need to do to repair the problem? Is it possible to eventually erase that page? The pictures are my own work which I scan on to my computer and then I used them in my writings. I can not find out why the dotted line around some of my paragraphs appear when I view what I wrote. Thank you for the simplest answers to my questions, signed: Ida1925 (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

When you upload an image to Wikipedia, we need to have a copyright tag - yours lacked this. That said, I've spot checked the images (they're still available though tagged as deleted) and seem to be as you say. Since you want to use these images , that you state you took as your own (and I see no reason not to believe this based on a TinEye check), the only question is that they would need to be under a free license to be used at Wikipedia. This is generally under the Creative Commons CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, under the GFDL, or as a public domain. (Default and recommended is CC-BY-SA) If you can state which one you want, we can undelete, add the appropriate license tag, and you should be okay. --MASEM (t) 21:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is The Sims 3 game pictures violate the non-free rule ?? Sundogs ^{talk page sandbox} 03:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-free files, like the pictures from Sims 3, may only be used in mainspace articles, not subpages or AfC submissions. In your words: "no exceptions". Writ Keeper (t + c) 04:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The pictures currently on RfC process so. Sundogs ^{talk page sandbox} 04:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me know where exactly you're talking about and I'll remove them for you. Writ Keeper (t + c) 04:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The images File:PKVMFront.jpg, File:Yoga_Practice_at_PKVM.jpg and File:Cultural_Activities_At_PKVM.jpg are created by me for the highschool where i am employed. What kind of copyright should i select to use these images and more on the page Pravara Kanya Vidya Mandir plz help Jay sonar (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't panic. I can help. Do you want to discuss it here or User talk:Jay sonar#Your copyright questions? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's an excellent recent image that could be used in the info box at this article. That flickr user has emailed me to say that I am welcome to use any of his Blockheads images. (If you want to see the quality of this guy's work, take at look at his Adam Ant set). But I see that he has tagged all of his flickr images with a licence of "All Rights Reserved". So I guess one would need to go via OTRS to get any uploaded to Commons? And one would also have to give the author an attribution in the image caption? Or can the strict Commons rules be by-passed in any way by direct wikipedia uploading of images tagged at flickr in this way? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Either the copyright holder can change his licence on the appropriate Flickr pages or get him to verify his consent directly to the OTRS team, preferably at the commons permissions-commons@wikimedia.org indicating exactly which images he is freely licenceing or, even better if you can sweet talk him into it, giving a blanket permission for all his images. Any attribution is dependent on the licence he agrees to give which he can negotiate with OTRS. There is really no bypass as the subjects all appear to be living, so free images could be made. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your swift and very clear reply. I have previously struggled, and failed, with trying to get an image for this article through the rather tortuous OTRS process. I'l have another word with the flickr author. His work really is top quality. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This photographer's work is really good so going through the OTRS process, which is often backlogged up to a month, may well be worth the effort. ww2censor (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is. We thought we'd try one at a time. So that might make the process quite a lengthy one! I'm hoping he may have one or two of Wilco somewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The way things are going so far, I think it may a very lengthy process indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Does this file meet the threshold of originality? It seems to consist of simple geometric shapes and text, if so it could be transfered on Commons.--87.11.15.140 (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I've uploaded some images to the Writtle College page. All these images were commissioned by the College and I have permission to use them.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.191.22 (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please communicate that permission using the process set out at WP:IOWN. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to check whether or not it will be acceptable to upload a (readable) scan of a magazine article, first published in the UK in 1902 or 1903 (before 1909, in any case). I don't know if it's going to be possible to confirm that the author has been dead for 70 years. The magazine ceased publication in about 1935, I believe. The existence of the magazine article (rather than just the text) will be an important part of its use in the article Stanley Spencer (aeronaut). Tevildo (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to have a copy of the magazine article just to know it existed but an online source would be good or even a Google books or WorldCat entry will likely suffice. You can always reference points from the it, or its existence, as citations in the article. If the author died when you said, and he wrote the article in question, and he died more than 20 years before 30 August 1989, then the copyright term is 50 years per the UK known author section. ww2censor (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It's PD in the US and can be uploaded to Wikipedia if you have a use for it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that magazine articles are quite acceptable here and at Commons if they can be shown to be in the public domain; you don't need to upload it to cite it, but I can't imagine anyone objecting to its presence (especially at Commons) as long as copyright is fine. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I want to start a new article regarding the Autoridad Jurisdiccional de Cuencas (AIC) [Jurisdictional Basin Authority], an organism that regulates the Neuquén, Limay and Negro basin. I want to use in the article some of the maps offered in their site. The AIC is gouvernemental agency, in the conditions of use of their material they state:

• The information published in this site may be reproduced or copied, as long as its characteristics and text content are kept in order. The issue date, and a citation of the AIC as the source (with the logo and name of the organism) must be included. The AIC does not assume any responsability regarding the misinterpretation or wrong use of the published information.

Original text in Spanish:

La información publicada en esta página puede ser reproducida o copiada mientras sean mantenidos el orden, contenido del texto y demás características de la misma, y se identifiquen claramente la fecha de emisión y la AIC como fuente (a través del Logotipo y Nombre del Organismo). No obstante, la AIC no asume responsabilidad alguna por la interpretación o uso que pueda hacerse de la información publicada.

I'm positive that the files on the site are free use, but I'm not sure under which license should I Upload them. Would the closest be a CC BY 3.0?--GDuwenTell me! 01:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I'm not sure about the "as long as its characteristics and text content are kept in order" clause (mientras sean mantenidos el orden, contenido del texto y demás características de la misma). It seems to me like it restricts derivative works, the allowance of which is necessary to be free by Wikipedia standards. Chris857 (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Chris; a Wikipedia-acceptable permission will permit people to take the characteristics and text content out of order, so this isn't safely reusable under Wikipedia-acceptable standards. Meanwhile, images should never be marked with CC tags unless they're specifically listed as being CC-licensed; we have plenty of acceptable permission tags for free-but-not-CC. If this didn't restrict derivative works, the proper tag would be {{Attribution}}. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a photo to add to the page for John-Michael Tebelak [[1]] This photo was given to me by the owner as a gift in a greeting card. I knew the subject of the photo personally. He is now deceased. I do not know who took the photo. It was taken approximately 31 years ago (circa 1982) in the USA. The photo was most likely taken by a friend or even a passerby at the cafe.I do not believe that it was a professional portrait or that anyone claims the rights to it.Wm.S. Striegel (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the person is deceased, you can upload a scan of that photo as a non-free image. Since we don't know the photographer (it might just have been family) and its rather recent, we need to assume that would be someone that could claim copyright on it, so we can't treat it as free. When you upload it, make sure to explain the source of the photo to you so that others can assume good faith that you got it in a unusual but not unheard-of fashion. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear editors: Can I use this semblance of lady Lovelace File : Ada_lovelace.jpg in an article I want to write about the origins of computing?

Bye and thank you.

Fred Madrid Spain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.140.214 (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes you can File:Ada lovelace.jpg has a valid public domain licence so it can be used on any wiki. NtheP (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I use the Redfern All Blacks rugby league club logo on the Redfern All Blacks wiki page?

You can see the logo online: http://redfernoralhistory.org/Default.aspx?tabid=211 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clare. (talk • contribs) 11:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is an allowable use of (presumably) non-free logos. You'll need a rationale for it, but {{non-free logo}} should do the trick. Use the Upload file wizard on the left column of Wikipedia to help you with that. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Clare. (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Masonic Lodge poster.JPG has been tagged for what appear to be dubious reasons. Can someone please review the image and rationales? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The image is good. You are right in your statement there at the commons deletion that it is a slavish reproduction of 2D art and not eligible for new copyright. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

do have any oploads for samsung smartTV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondlin (talk • contribs) 15:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have created and uploaded the Asian Heart Institute and Asian Hospitals page. I have uploaded the building picture, logo and citation icon on the Asian heart Institute page. It seems to be attracting some copyright comment. I respect the rules and requirements and would appreciate some guidance with how to clear these pictures for the page and prevent its deletion. The organisation is our client, and all the information is important and relevant to the public. I can obtain a letter from the hospital clearing these images for use.

Alvin Saldanha [contact info redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvinsaldanhaecd (talk • contribs) 16:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Alvin. Let my try to explain the various problems with your files.

• File:India's Best Private Cardiac Hospital.jpg. You have uploaded this image without any information about its source, the original designer and its copyright status. Unless the designer of the award icon has released it under a free license, you will have to provide a fair use rationale, explaining how this particular image helps the general understand an article about the hospital. But I for one don't see any benefit of this image for use in the hospital article. In my opinion including an image of the award looks too promotional to be of any encyclopedical value. The general reader will learn enough by reading that the hospitals has been awarded this and that price.
• File:Asian Heart Instiute building.jpg. Our guidelines for fair use require that non-free images cannot be replaced by free versions. In this case though anyone could take a photo of the building and release it under a free license. Therefore we cannot accept a non-free photo of the hospital. Please note that only the original photographer and not the hospital can approve the use of this image under a free license. So if you can contact the photographer, please ask them to have a look at WP:CONSENT. That page explains how to forward an email of consent to the Wikimedia Foundation. In this

De728631 (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The following was originally posted (with some alterations) on the talk page for Wikipedia:Public domain (March 30, 2013), but this may be a better place for the question.

For works published in the US between 1923 and 1977, the lack of a copyright notice can place the work in the public domain. There is a template {{PD-US-no notice}} which can be used for such works. At the same time, from what one can tell, there is a legal exception that may be problematic: if a work was published prior to 1978 under license from the copyright holder and a copyright notice was omitted in violation of the license, then the lack of a copyright notice does not remove the work from copyright. Stephen Fishman talks about this on page 368 of The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More (Nolo, 2012) and gives an example where a publisher who publishes an author's story in 1975, having received oral permission from the author, and who fails to include a copyright notice would likely be found to have violated an implied promise to avoid harming the author's copyright rights, meaning that the omission of the copyright notice would probably not remove the story from copyright.

Though this might not be an issue for works that are not licensed (i.e. works published by the copyright holder themself), the question is whether Wikipedia contributors who find a work that was published in the US before 1978 without a copyright notice should determine if the omission of the notice violated a license before uploading the work, and whether the {{PD-US-no notice}} template and the Wikipedia:Public domain page should be adjusted. (From what Fishman says, assessing the copyright status of a work published before 1978 with regard to the lack of a copyright notice would mean determining if the publication of the work involved licensing and the details of any licensing, which might not be easy.) - Elegie (talk) 04:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This table might be helpful. De728631 (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that it only counts as publication if it was published with the consent of the copyright holder. If the publisher signed a contract with the publisher, and the publisher violated that contract, then it doesn't count as publication. For example, let's say that the author allowed the publisher to publish it under the condition that the publisher included a copyright notice. If the publication didn't include a copyright notice, then the contract was violated, so it was an unlawful publication which didn't count as publication. Impossible to prove if this was the case in any given case, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it works that way. The point of a copyright notice was to notify the public of copyright; if your agent left it out that was your problem. If you could add a clause that says if the publisher screwed up copyright, then it wasn't a legitimate publishing, why wouldn't you add that to all contracts?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Is a star considered a simple geometric shape? If so this file could be transfered on commons.--217.200.185.246 (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Done --Stefan2 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Why that image is not in Commons? – EtäKärppä^Khihi 12:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The image is protected by copyright in the United States, so it wouldn't be accepted on Commons. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 14#File:Turk Broda.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this image totally eligible for copyright, especially in UK? --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It is copyrighted, but it's allowed for usage on Wikipedia under fair use rationale. Basically, under US copyright law, copyrighted materials can be used for free under specific circumstances like educational purposes. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think George Ho was more referring to the threshold of originality and whether this might be a case of simple text. I would be wary though because of the shading around the font. IMHO this is not {{PD-textlogo}}. De728631 (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia copyright experts,

Today I uploaded 5 images of works by artist Sam Francis, for use in the article "Sam Francis."

I uploaded them as "non-free" to provide examples of the artist's style over time. Here, for example, is one of them:

19:12, 14 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+724)‎ . . N File:Sam Francis Grid Painting 1978.jpg ‎ (Uploading a non-free work, as object of commentary using File Upload Wizard)

I just saw a notice on the images that I must reduce the sizes of all five images.

I have two questions:

1) How can I know how much the images need to be reduced?

2) I have the permission of the artist's estate to post images of his work to Wikipedia. Is there another type of license I should be using?

Thanks for the help, John Seed (user:Mydogsarelazy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydogsarelazy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

1. The image size should not exceed 100,000 pixel in total (unless in exceptional cases with a really good reason), see the relevant policy under WP:Image resolution for more info. Additional info about Wiki-specific fair-use criteria can be found at WP:NFCC.
2. If the copyright holder is willing to grant usage permission for all purposes (not only Wikipedia, incl. commercial usage of third parties), you can verify that permission with an OTRS-mail, see WP:CONSENT for a template mail and more info. GermanJoe (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out if I should upload this [2] to commons. « Ryūkotsusei » 04:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'd think it passes, owing to the gradation in the colours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. Just to follow-up, here it is. File:Gamasutra logo.svg. « Ryūkotsusei » 16:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Since this is my first time uploading a Logo I'd like to know if someone could recheck my upload?

ThanksMauro246 (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I know you uploaded it as a non-free logo, but I think that it probably qualifies as PD-textlogo, since it is solely black text and a black, regular hexagon. Chris857 (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Modernist reverted some changes to paintings marking them as PD-Ineligible. They do in fact seem ineligible for copyright. Can someone take a look at the following images and say what they think? Ryan Vesey 23:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:'23', oil on canvas painting by John McCracken, 1964, Smithsonian American Art Museum.jpg
• File:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg

Bridge by Noland is an example of one of the most important Chevron paintings done by one of the most important painters of the 20th century; and 23 is an important early work done by the Los Angeles minimalist best known for his sculptural planks...Modernist (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make them eligible for copyright. Ryan Vesey 23:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? They are unique and valuable paintings and the copyrights are crucial and belong to the artist estates as they are both deceased...Modernist (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The right to reproduce unique works of visual art remains exclusively with the artist and with the artists estates...Modernist (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll note that I'm less sure of myself on this than I am on the comment below. In the United States, simple geometric shapes are not eligible for copyright, at the same time, creativity is. I'm not sure to what exact sense one has precedence over the other. I would presume that 23 is more likely to be ineligible than Bridge is. Ryan Vesey 23:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ryan - they are both well known images by very well known artists - Bridge in particular...Modernist (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Modernist, that has nothing to do with the copyright status, only if you can use it as a non-free image. Ryan, I'd bet dollar to dime 23 is PD-simple. 'Bridge' not so much, might pass the ToO. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ryan and Crisco - you're correct about this work by Yves Klein - File:IKB 191.jpg but not this by Barnett Newman - File:Voice of Fire photo.jpg...Modernist (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as McCracken's 23 goes - the color determines its uniqueness as well as its geometric properties - its a painting...Modernist (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) I didn't mention either of those. I'd consider both of those patently PD-Simple in the US, although other countries may have stricter threshholds. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

23 is too simple to pass the threshhold of Originality in the US. If it's an American work, it should go to commons. Several editors experienced in copyright matters have already given you input on the subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Like the Newman the color is crucial to the quality of 23 - a very valuable painting; as to Bridge that image is extremely well known by the way...Modernist (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is there any reason copyright law would be different for works of art than it is for logos, because all of these would be PD if they were logos. Ryan Vesey 00:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • They are PD, no matter what Modernist says, unless he can provide case law otherwise. Colours may be patentable (I think) but I've never heard of them being copyrightable, especially for colours which can be replicated by any monitor. I've already uploaded VOF to Commons and deleted the local copy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello? These are very valuable works of 2 dimensional visual art - paintings - they are copyrighted to the artist according to United States law...Modernist (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The paintings are copyrighted - the color identifies them for what they are...Modernist (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Erm, case law? Right now I'm hearing "they should be copyrighted because they're so valuable!". I'm not seeing anything relevant to case law. Frankenstein, the Bible, and the Mona Lisa are all valuable intellectual properties but still public domain (although for age). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Can someone say WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT? Ryan Vesey 00:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Tell me about it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Logos are very different from unique paintings...Modernist (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There's this one too: File:DFHFrankStella.jpg...Modernist (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Not sure on that one, considering the number of lines and what appears to be a deliberate darkening of the lines near the corners. That one's German too, so the law is different. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Try this [3]...Modernist (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
        • So while MoMA owns the actual canvas of “Les Demoiselles,” the family of Picasso, who died in 1973, still owns the image. And under existing law, the estate will continue to own the copyright until 2043. If someone wants to reproduce the painting — on a Web site, a calendar, a T-shirt, or in a film — it is the estate that must give its permission, not the museum. ...Modernist (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Are you kidding me? Mademoisselles de Avignon is nowhere near PD-simple. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
          • My word, "Les Demoiselles" is not a painting with simple geometric shapes. Were any of the paintings mentioned there paintings of simple geometric shapes? You clearly have no conception of copyright, so I suggest that you stop arguing about it, at least until you go learn some more. Ryan Vesey 00:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is in the public domain in the United States (published before 1923) but protected by copyright in almost every other country. In which country was the complaint? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
              • American film, French(?) family. Don't know what court they used. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Crisco about 23, Voice of Fire, and IKB 191. They may be historically quite significant, and I'm sure the physical objects are very valuable, but I can't see any way they would pass the threshold of originality test required in the US in order to establish copyright. The designs are simply too simple and generic. The historical significance or monetary value of an object just isn't part of the calculation. Personally, I would tend to think Bridge does have enough creativity in its design to sustain a copyright, but people more experienced in this arena might disagree. Dragons flight (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• You gotta be kidding? You think Josef Albers work or Barnett Newman's or Frank Stella's or Kenneth Noland's or Piet Mondrian's can't be copyrighted? That's it fellas - this conversation is over...Modernist (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Although I almost agree with you all concerning the Yves Klein...Modernist (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • S/he is not saying all work by these artists is PD, just these specific instances. Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:STICK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • None of these works are in the public domain - that's my point, except for perhaps the Yves Klein...Modernist (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
        • A specific instance may still be PD if it's too simple to attract copyright, which is what everyone's been saying from the getgo. If you say "Josef Albers (sic) work", that means his whole oeuvre, which is patently untrue. The work must be considered on a case by case basis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Josef Albers made several hundred paintings like this File:Josef Albers's painting 'Homage to the Square', 1965.jpg - his Homage to the Square series that made him famous...Modernist (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
            • That one has texture. At a higher resolution I'd have a better opinion as to its creativity: if it's from the medium, or deliberate. The idea itself is certainly PD, however. This is why we look at it on a case by case basis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• What I'm saying from the getgo is these images have unique properties that make them copyright eligible for some it's the color - for some it's the design, for some as you say it might be the surface; they are unique works of art...Modernist (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• These are not "simple geometric shapes", they are photographs of individual physical objects (paintings), created by an artist. The comparison with graphic designs like logos misses the whole point. Of course they are eligible for copyright - please go away & ask an IP lawyer. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• These works of art aren't nearly as original as some logos that have not received copyright protection. Consider File:Best Western logo.svg which is orders of magnitude more original than File:'23', oil on canvas painting by John McCracken, 1964, Smithsonian American Art Museum.jpg. Ryan Vesey 02:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point; logos are reproducible designs that exist in the abstract, not tied to any individual physical object; these paintings are individual physical objects of creative work. It might well be harder for the paintings' owners, compared to owners of paintings with more complex designs, to make a claim for breach of copyright against another similar painting, but the work itself is copyrightable. The comparison with designs is a category error. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking through some case law right now and haven't found too much, but I'll note that the Supreme Court overturned an appeals court decision that "if a 'picture has no other use than that of a mere advertisement, and no value aside from this function, it would not be promotive of the useful arts, within the meaning of the constitutional provision, to protect the 'author' in the exclusive use thereof'". So in the eyes of US copyright law, there is no difference between artwork and advertisements. Ryan Vesey 03:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Prima facie that hardly justifies your inference, but is still off the point. Johnbod (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Also note that 23 is only tiny because it was reduced to be eligible for fair use (diff). Maybe you can argue that the resulting images are PD-simple (and maybe the original sources weren't even photographs—some origins from the examples above aren't listed), but if we can assume in good faith that they once came from photographs so as to be used under fair use, it makes sense to leave them with copyright intact (not tagged as PD-ineligible). czar · · 02:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A photograph of a PD piece of art does not receive copyright protection in the United States (I'm not sure about other countries). Ryan Vesey 02:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with this organization: VAGA...Modernist (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

And here [4]...Modernist (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Another good read with links [5]...Modernist (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what conclusion you want me to draw from the links provided? Any quotations would be great, I don't care to read the entire thing to guess what conclusion you want me to derive. I assume you are trying to refute my statement that "A photograph of a PD piece of art does not receive copyright protection in the United States"; however, your first two links don't have anything to do with that and your third supports my statement. Ryan Vesey 03:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if they'll reply, but I sent an email to the US Copyright Office hoping they might way in on the copyright status of those images. Ryan Vesey 03:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• I actually think we might be going about this the wrong way:Both of these images were created before 1978 so copyright wasn't automatically applied unless they registered for copyright protection. That means someone here who knows how to check the copyright protection logs (or whatever it is that they check) should be able to check for the existence of these images. If they exist and are protected, all of our discussion is moot because the copyright office must have determined that they did pass the threshhold of originality. If they are not listed as having copyright protection, they either didn't register for it or were not awarded it. Can someone check whatever has to be checked to find that out? Ryan Vesey 04:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ryan - let me hear what you find out although the copyright protection might apply anyway, post-facto...Modernist (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there is an exception for artists, who are able to apply for registration retroctively, so the question would be potentially open anyway. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright registration has never been mandatory to gain copyright protection (except if the work was published without copyright notice between 1978 and 1989). Copyright registration is only necessary for Americans if they wish to sue someone over copyright infringement, and in that case, they could (if I've understood things correctly) register the work for copyright right before filing the lawsuit, although there are advantages registering for copyright around the time of publication.

Finding out whether a painting has been published is not trivial. Exhibiting a painting at a museum is sometimes publication but sometimes not. See also Commons:COM:VPC#Paintings and publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not the whole truth. Publication is the key parameter for copyright in the US, and the following works are also in the public domain: 1923 through 1977: Published without a copyright notice (see here). On the other hand, there are various opportunities for works published after 1964 to be copyrighted in the US:

• 1964 through 1989: published with a copyright notice (Obviously there are no copyright notices on the obverse sides of either of these two images but we don't know if there's a sticker on the back of the canvas.)
• first published 1 March 1989 through 2002 and created before 1977, i.e. 1964 in this case
• All works first published after 2002 are automatically protected without formal requirements.

De728631 (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it is close to impossible to show whether it was published in the first place, let alone whether there was a copyright notice at the museum. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

So I'm trying to go through some case law related to this and the most applicable I've found is here. By my reading, and I didn't have time to read the whole thing, the concept of originality was supposed to have a very low threshold. "The Bleistein test (see Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Company) does not consider the novelty or creativity of the work, but rather the presence or absence of the putative artist’s personal expression". Furthermore, the court doesn't consider the level of the artist's expression in the work, only it's presence. That being said, I still have a lot of trouble coming to the conclusion that 23 would be afforded copyright protection. Consider File:Balkenkreuz.svg, which 23 is virtually a derivative of. Ryan Vesey 03:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Try looking at McCracken's painting...Modernist (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am making this simple point - the artists, their estates, (sometimes policed by organizations like VAGA) own the copyright to the paintings and the right to reproduce them...Modernist (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Boy, conversing with you would be a whole lot easier if you would think before you place a comment so you put it in the correct section. The fact that artists can own copyright over their works doesn't mean they do. That's what we're trying to determine. You are consistently bringing up arguments unrelated to that. Ryan Vesey 04:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

One should be careful drawing any conclusions about copyright law based on cases prior to the Copyright Act of 1909. The prevailing law before that time was quite different than we see today. Dragons flight (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Precisely - copyright law has been updated since 1909...Modernist (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It's great to see that you agree with this, seeing as the case law supported your statement. Ryan Vesey 04:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even think to check the date, you're correct that long predated the 1976 copyright act. Ryan Vesey 04:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As the article currently stands, if 23 is copyrighted, I don't believe it can be used in John McCracken in the article's current state. 23 isn't adequately described in the article for the image to have contextual significance. The plank on the other hand, if that is somehow copyrightable (I haven't been looking at 3D copyright) has contextual significance and can certainly remain. File:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg is in far too many articles for minimal usage, correct? Bridge can't be used in Kenneth Noland as the article stands since it isn't described in the article. It isn't mentioned in Western Painting either, but that article is a mess of copyvios. In Washington Color School the piece of art is used to depict Kenneth Noland, which is certainly a violation. In Post-painterly Abstraction, I believe the image is okay with the current description, but there are two non-free images there. One should be removed. The same problem that occurs in Western Painting occurs in History of Painting and 20th-century Western painting because the articles are almost duplicates of eachother. That has to be fixed up because it's a complete mess, but that's not really the work of Media copyright, it's more of a following WP:SUMMARYSTYLE type of issue.03:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Vesey (talk • contribs)

Would it be acceptable under our fair-use of copyrighted material policy to include pictures from the BBC's undercover documentary on North Korea (see [6]). I know in most countrys, it wouldn't be allowed. However, seeing as editors would be risking their life to take a picture of the 'hidden side' of the country, can we use the pictures as there is no reasonable way to get a free-use alternative? Oddbodz (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The page tells that "Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only" so I can't see the documentary (very unfortunate; it looks interesting). What images are you thinking of, where would you want to use them and why do you think that those particular images are irreplaceable? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they are irreplaceable - evidently tourists can visit NK and they could release photographs under a free license. Sweeney wasn't really 'undercover' other than the fact that they didn't realise he was a journalist - they were filming (or appearing to be taking photographs) freely. There wasn't really anything new that was shown in the documentary AFAICT anyway - there were already several similar documentaries made while on tours, many of which are on youtube. SmartSE (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to use a still from a shot that shows woman having to wash in a river. It was stated in the documentary these photos are banned and the guides were telling the BBC not to be taking them. Oddbodz (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to ask if i can upload this picture to wikipedia because i want to use it on a "Croats" article...

http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/content/78/6/671/F3.large.jpg ?? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It depends on when the picture was taken and first published. Copyright law is a bit of a confusing morass as to when a picture enters the public domain, but generally knowing if a specific picture is old enough for its copyright to have expired depends entirely on when it was first published and in what country. Unless we have that provenance, it is impossible to answer with authority. It may be old enough, Mohorovičić is old enough to have pictures of him which may be in the public domain unambiguously, but pictures from the latter part of his life could be covered by copyright still. We need to know more about the provenance of the picture in order to know if it's OK to upload it at Wikipedia, and we can't tell that from just the picture itself. --Jayron32 03:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The title says it all, File:Haldan Keffer Hartline nobel.jpg. Ryan Vesey 02:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It depends on whether it really is non-free. It should be in the public domain in the source country, and it was also in the public domain here on the URAA date, but the question is whether it was ever published without a copyright notice as required by {{PD-URAA}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded some pictures to the "Port Richmond" and "Elm Park" pages, and it says that I have to give credit to the image's creator, but I'm the person who took the photo. I thought I did everything right as far as copyright goes and everything, but apparently I didn't. I give permission for Wikipedia to use my pictures, so can somebody just help me with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkmatechamp137 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any copyright or attribution problems with the images that you uploaded last October other than the fact that you seem to have taken them through your wet car windscreen or with a wet lens which makes them rather blurry, blows out many highlights and makes then generally poor quality. Can you be more specific with your problem? I would recommend reshooting the images on a fine day if that is possible. ww2censor (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have uploaded images which are now pending deletion due to copyright issues. I have been asked to provide evidence of permission for copyright but the authors of all three images have been dead for more than 70 years. Since all these images were created for and owned by my family, what is the copyright status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.33.11 (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Which are the images in question? Under which account did you upload them? Sorry, but I cannot give an explicit answer without knowing which images you are referring to. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

They are File:Llangattock Crest.jpg and File:John Allan Rolls Crest.jpg Ithundir (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be best if the copyright holder would verify permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT as they may still in copyright but there is also a chance they have fallen into the public domain. You may want to check out the UK section of commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory to see if they comply with any of the free features. ww2censor (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ngunalik (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Hi could anyone please help me with these two files. I found that they are for public use and currently there is no restrictions. However, the system asked me for source information etc. I tried but it seems I have not coded it properly.

The links are here: File:Museveni-with-victorious-NRA-commanders-and-soldiers-now-UPDF-inspecting-the-Uganda-Sudan-border-in-1986.jpg

The second file is File:IDP concentration camp in Acoli (Acholi), 2005.jpg

I am having trouble doing the part that says "licensing"

ThanksNgunalik (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all you will have to provide evidence that there are no restrictions on those images. See WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm writing up the Grolier Codex and images are available on Commons. As far as I can tell, given the history of the artefact, all of these photos come from Justin Kerr's website, where all images are marked as copyright, and are credited as coming from Michael Coe's 1973 publication The Maya Scribe and his World. Now, if the codex was indisputably a pre-Columbian Maya artefact presumably {{PD-old-100}} would apply but there is considerable debate as to whether this is a 20th century forgery. Should I steer clear of these images? Thanks in advance for any advice, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you move this file on Commons? It doesn't pass the threshold of originality.--87.17.29.67 (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to upload a map from the Episcopal Church of the Sudans website, showing their diocesan boundaries.

http://sudan.anglican.org/images/sudanmaplarge.jpg

They also have a separate map for the dioceses in South Sudan, though its in PDF format

http://sudan.anglican.org/files/sudanmap.pdf

Can either of these be added to the Episcopal Church of the Sudan wiki pages under fair use?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably not as they would fail NFCC#1 in that free versions could be produced using the same data the maps are based on. NtheP (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see the answer I gave at Wikipedia:Help desk#Does this count as fair use?. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I just got an e-mail from the church giving me permission to add the map to the page. I should certainly be able to now, right?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe you need to forward the email to OTRS. The specific wording of the email also matters. The email must give permission which is compatible with GFDL and/or cc-by-sa, which means that it must explicitly allow commercial reuse beyond Wikipedia. If it is just permission to use it on Wikipedia alone, that is not enough. See WP:IOWN and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information. --Jayron32 03:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Kindly re-directed here from The Teahouse... I'm curious what I may submit to Wikimedia Commons: high-resolution photos I took of paintings I own. Here are several examples:

1. I own the painting, I took the photo, painter is dead 28 years, painting is thus young. Are there written permissions I might obtain from the estate (the presumed copyright holder) that will allow me to freely upload? Background: I personally own original paintings by Gene Davis (1920-1985). Thus, he hasn't been dead 50 or 80 years, and the paintings are not 100 years old or before 1923, etc. Prints/posters of these paintings are available for sale, though. May I put high-resolution photos, photos I personally have taken, into the Wikimedia Commons? I assume the copyright I'm relinquishing is that of the photos, not of the paintings themselves. I also assume that doing this may curtail my own ability to "sell" photos/posters of these paintings, but I'm fine with that.
2. I own a 100+ year old painting, I took its photo, painter is dead 80+ years. Free to go, right?
3. I own a painting, I took its photo, the painter is alive, the painting is <10 years old, the subject of the painting is a famous person dead 50+ years. What written permissions do I need -- the painter only? The person in the painting isn't an issue, right?

Thanks in advance for your assistance - ResearcherQ (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

On question 1, no, a photograph of a painting still under copyright would still have the copyright of the painting. Photographing like this is creating a derivative work and with a 2D image, you're doing what's considered a "slavish reproduction", meaning that your copy carries the copyright of the original. So your photograph - even if you release it for free, will still have the copyright of the painting and thus considered non-free.

Question 2, it most likely is the case that the painting is out of copyright so yes, you can take a photo, release it under a free license, and be all set.

Question 3, the painter will likely be the one to contact. With the person being dead, there's no likely issue of personality rights to worry about, but you definitely need to get the painter to affirm he has the copyright. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a fair use sample of File:EMK eulogy of RFK.ogg. The original speech has been deleted. What am I suppose to do?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am quite surprised to have no responses to this one after 5 days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this logo (File:Central Connecticut Blue Devils Wordmark.png) simple enough for a PD-text tag, or is it going to need a fair-use rationale? ALH (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly say that the license that it is currently using is not valid, since the logo contains a combination of words and styling that render it a unique logo, neither a "simple geometric shape" nor an "individual word". I don't see how it can be public domain unless the copyright owner has released it as such or the copyright has expired. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to make sure. I'll lower the resolution and add a fair-use rationale. ALH (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a question about some images that I included in the Zevia article. The non-free use rationale was disputed because the editor didn't think it looked like a logo. I used the Coca-Cola#Brand portfolio as a guide for uploading the images and including them in a table. Did I do something incorrectly? If so, how do I correct? Thanks, HtownCat (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The images at Coca-Cola#Brand portfolio are also problematic. (See the discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Coca-Cola packaging.) Generally use of multiple non-free images in a list is limited. (See WP:NFLISTS for the guideline.) More generally the use of non-free content is allowed only if the use significantly increases reader understanding. (See WP:NFCC#8 for the policy.) I don’t see that your use of every can does that.

How to fix? Remove the can images. If you really think it necessary, describe the cans in text. —teb728 t c 03:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello sir, Im creating a website for commercial purpose which contains information of dog profiles.so im desperate in need of legal copyright images for the large set of dog breed profiles.Can i use any dog image on common wikimedia for my website? note: im in poor financial state any help will be greatly appreciated thank you, n sriharsha(india) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namburi Sriharsha (talk • contribs) 03:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

All images on Commons are supposed to be in the public domain or licensed for commercial use. But there are two possible problems: It has been known to happen that uploaders mistakenly mis-state the license. And copyright laws vary from place to place which may make an image not public domain in some places.

So you need to use them carefully. Click on the images to get to the image description pages, read the licensing information there, and make your own judgment on how it applies to you. Note that we cannot give legal advice. —teb728 t c 04:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a standard protocol for using a DVD box image in an article about a film? IMDb and many other media (including adverts by DVD sellers) routinely use such images, what are the rules for doing so here? Please don't just say "It's Fair Use", tell me in full detail what to enter on the upload page. I've seen far too many editors getting their efforts stomped on by the jackboots of the copyright gestapo just because the rationales they gave were not absolutely perfectly to the liking of the enforcer.

If a DVD box image is problematic I can use an image from the film - also already published in a variety of media. All the other film articles I have looked at use a poster image with a standard rationale template - I haven't found a similar template for box covers. I have not found a poster image for the film I'm writing about. It might never have had a poster as the film was never released to general theatres, it showed only at festivals and on tv. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If there is no poster, you can use the DVD cover as the infobox image - when you upload it using the "Upload File" wizard, you can say that it is a copyrighted work and say that it is cover art to be used in the infobox (there are radio buttons for that). If it is the existing image, you can use {{Non-free video cover}} as the right license and you still need a non-free rationale for it. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering if this is in fact a copyright violation. If there was an early screening of the film for a small select group of people, is it appropriate to post the details of that plot before the film has been released for wide distribution? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

How would this be any more of a copyvio than any other plot summary? I can see WP:V and RS potential issues, particularly if a rough cut was involved, but not copyvio issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yea, it's a WP:V issue, not a copyright one. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for inquiring her, then. Maybe I need to re-read the copyvio stuff. I thought that posting before general release was unacceptable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it is a problem, just not one that is a copyright issue. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I found a copy online of a QUARTER PLATE DAGUERREOTYPE of SENECA CHIEF GOVERNOR BLACKSNAKE. It was taken before his death on Dec 26,1859. Photo artist was F.C. Flint, 402 So. Salina St., Syracuse, N.Y. In spite of this detailed information, they could find no information on Flint. The article said it had been used in several publications. It was sold at auction for $22,325.00. Would this picture be a public domain image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DebBakDavis (talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this might be the website you found it at? Anyway, it says that the daguerreotype first appeared in Donaldson, Thomas (1892). Indians : the Six Nations of New York: Cayugas, Mohawks (Saint Regis), Oneidas, Onondagas, Senecas, Tuscaroras. United States Census Office. p. 28.; Google confirms it is in the book. This book was published before 1923, presumably in the United States (as it is a Census work). So, yes, I believe this is Public Domain as PD-pre1923. If the Google Book has the best resolution and quality, you can screenshot it, crop the rest of the page, and upload that to Commons. Chris857 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

PS, for reference, his article is Governor Blacksnake. Chris857 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Check File:Original crop.jpg and File:Difference 60 x5.jpg. Both are listed as GFDL which was relicensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0. So far so good, but see File:Josefina with Bokeh.jpg. Same image, but now licensed as CC-BY 2.0, and this copy is older. This means that the GFDL claim by User:Fir0002 might have been invalid, and if the file never was licensed as GFDL, File:Difference 60 x5.jpg wasn't licensed as GFDL either. I'm not sure if GFDL is compatible with CC-BY 2.0 (I think I've read something about problems related to requests for non-attribution which might cause problems), and if GFDL wasn't valid, then relicensing as CC-BY-SA 3.0 might not have been valid either. It is fine to make a derivative work of a CC-BY file and license the outcome as CC-BY-SA, though. Is it possible to keep the two GFDL|migration=relicense images for some reason, or do they have to be deleted due to this licence issue?

Both images are of course copyright violations as the original photographer isn't credited, but that is another issue. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that Matisse (and probably many other artists) has a whole bunch of paintings here on en: List of works by Henri Matisse. A few examples are:

• File:Matissenotredame.jpg
• File:Henri Matisse Self-Portrait in a Striped T-shirt (1906).jpg
• File:Matisse the study of moreau.jpg

and many more. These are not low-res images as is done with fair use media. If looked at as life of author + 70 years, these works would not be PD (Matisse died in 1954). Rather, these are tagged as PD on the grounds that they were published before 1/1/1923. However, according to the US Copyright office at [7], (toward the bottom of page 1) it says: "A work of art that exists in only one copy, such as a painting or a statue, is not regarded as published when the single existing copy is sold or offered for sale in the traditional way..."

How should I proceed? I am wary of being too bold and going through and altering so many images at one time ,without getting some input on this.

Thoughts?

-Seidenstud (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking around I see that the Matisse family attempted to defend the copyright on the paintings at least as late as 1999 [8], which suggests that the PD interpretation is wrong and we have to wait until 2024 for them to be PD and the "publication" aspect you point out is correct. --MASEM (t) 05:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(Life+70 is January 1st, 2025, not 2024. It rounds up.)

That's UK law, not US law. It's clear they don't exist in only one copy, since we have a copy here. Nor is that statement by the Copyright Office complete; pre-1978, mere exhibition could count as publication, and once published, always published. Nor do I see any reason to think they weren't published in books, postcards, etc. before 1923. At Commons we've generally assumed that paintings are published close to their creation dates because any other assumption is hard. IMO, there's no chance life+70 applies to these paintings in the US; that would mean they were never published until 2002. Worst-case scenario they were published in 1977 and then get 95 years from that date of publication; out of copyright in 2073.

In this case, I'm pretty sure most of these were published before 1923; anything in Henri Matisse; trente reproductions de peintures et dessins précédées d'une étude critique par Marcel Sembat, de notices biographiques et documentaires et d'un portrait inédit de l'artiste, par lui-même, gravé sur bois par Jules Germain. (1920) would be out of copyright by now, for example.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather dubious about that - any illustration published before 1923 will be out of copyright. I'm not sure that applies to new photographs of the painting. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. says that photographic copies of paintings don't get their own copyright; the only question is the copyright of the painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The argument above is that if there is no formal publishing of a singular painting under US law (and that's what it suggests) then the copyright term is life of the painter + 70 yrs, the date of (non)publication does not come into play. And I agree that photographs of paintings are not new copyrights or acts of publications per the idea of slavish reproduction of 2D works. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Photographs of paintings are publications of the artistic work; the Chicago Picasso (s:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago) was published before it existed, as the display of the maquette counted as publishing. Making copies of a painting in a book and selling them certainly counts as publishing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Publication of paintings is a very complicated matter. It is only publication if it was at a place accessible to the general public, if photography was allowed and if it was before 1978. See s:American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister about a case where a painting was found to be unpublished as the museum didn't allow photography. Another issue is that publication has to be with the consent of the copyright holder, and museums often exhibit paintings without the consent of the painter because the copyright laws of lots of countries say that you don't need the painter's permission to exhibit paintings. Also, use in catalogues and similar places might be based on fair use.

Generally speaking, we assume that paintings were published shortly after they were made, although this probably is wrong in a lot of cases. Information about past museum exhibitions and past prohibitions on photography at random museums is simply not easily accessible. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

So, if I own a video, and I want to cut an image from it for Wikipedia, do I have to let my video became free in order to made my image free?--Lê _{talk-contributions} 13:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you only have to publish that single screenshot under a free licence. The rest of the video can remain unlicensed if you so wish. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify what exactly you mean by "I own a video" - Do you own the copyright because you created it yourself, or do you just happen to own a copy of a video which was made by someone else who owns the actual copyright? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)