Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:26, 3 August 2013

Template:Active editnotice

• WP:CQ
• WP:MCQ
• WP:IMAGEHELP
• WP:ICHD

Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Misplaced Pages:Questions.

How to add a copyright tag to an existing image

1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
2. From the page Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
   • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
   • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
   • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
5. Hit Publish changes.
6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.

How to ask a question

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

Note for those replying to posted questions

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

If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: ]. (Please note the ":" just before the word File) Thanks!

Archives

Archive list Archive year 2006 Closed Archive year 2007 Closed Archive year 2008 Closed Archive year 2009 Closed Archive year 2010 Closed Archive year 2011 Closed Archive year 2012 Closed Archive year 2013 Closed Archive year 2014 Closed Archive year 2015 Closed Archive year 2016 Closed Archive year 2017 Closed Archive year 2018 Closed Archive year 2019 Closed Archive year 2020 Closed Archive year 2021 Closed Archive year 2022 Closed Archive year 2023 Closed Archive year 2024 Open Some pre-2009 archives from pages now merged here (note: more recent questions from these pages can be found at WP:MCQ or its archives above.) Requested copyright examinations archives Can I use... 2005-2006 archive Can I use... January-August 2007 archive Can I use... August-December 2007 archive Misplaced Pages:Image copyright help desk/Archive 1 Misplaced Pages:Image copyright help desk/Archive 2 This page serves as a portal for Yearly archives, inside the archives are in month format, please see the Archives in the sidebox. Thanks.

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Yearbook Copyrights

I made a post on the help desk page about this, and I was redirected here. I was wondering what the policy on posting photos of celebrities from yearbooks is. For the specific photo I want to use, there is no noted copyright in the book. I found the name of the company (Zepp Photo Centers) that took the photo, however, as far as I can tell, it no longer exists (the photograph was taken in 1977). Is the photo public domain? Judgmentalowl (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It all depends on the copyright status; a yearbook photo is fine as long as it's in the public domain. Copyright law doesn't care what kind of book you use, so the rules for yearbooks are the same as for books published by university presses. Please see the stipulations at Template:PD-US-no notice — despite what you were told at the Help Desk, anything published in the USA in 1977 or earlier without a copyright notice is in the public domain, unless it were first published in another country. Was Glass's yearbook published in 1977, or did they take the photo one year and publish it the next? And just to be sure, was it published in the USA? Nyttend (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

From what I can infer from that file's logs on Commons, the immediate reason for its deletion was not a problem with policy, but apparently it was because a user considered that the information about its source ("77 Milestone") was unclear or insufficient to be easily understood and verified, and apparently you didn't take action to reply to the request for clarification. (The use of the template "PD-because" probably didn't help either, as it's a last resort template and its use is often a sign that the uploader couldn't find a specific template with a valid PD justification. The PD reason you wrote in the parameter of the template was valid, but normally that reason is expressed by the use of the specific template "PD-US-no notice".) So, this may have been a misunderstanding due to the ambiguity in the description page. However, before you can tell if the file is in the public domain, it would be better if you could tell for sure who the copyright owner was and if the photo was published in the yearbook with the agreement of the copyright owner. You say the photo was taken by Zepp Photo Centers and you also said in the description page that the author of the photo is Millford Mill High School. By the way, how did you find that it was taken by Zepp Photo? Were all the photos in the yearbook taken by this company specifically for publication in the yearbook? If there is no copyright notice, how can you be sure that the school is the author of the photo? Also, some people may see a problem if the absence of copyright notice cannot be independently verified. Above, you wrote: "For the specific photo I want to use, there is no noted copyright in the book". That is also ambiguous. Are you implying that some or all the other photos in the book have copyright notices or that there is no copyright notice at all for anything anywhere in the book? Anyway, if the above questions are clarified to your satisfaction, you could request the undeletion of the file, by explaining the situation either to the sysop who deleted it or in a formal undeletion request and you'll see what will be decided about it. If the file is undeleted, make sure you clarify the informations on the description page. Use by preference a specific PD template, such as PD-US-no notice (You can also add redundant information in the "permission" field, if necessary, for example "published without a copyright notice". Explain clearly in your own words the source of the image. For example, it could be something like: "Scanned by the uploader from a paper copy of 77 Milestone, the yearbook of Millford Mill High School, published in 1977". -- Asclepias (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no copyright information in the book, but there is a page that references Zepp Photo Centers. I think I was mistaken in thinking that it was the company that took the photos; after looking over the page with my dad we came to the conclusion that it was an add for a local business and not an acknowledgment of the company that took the photo. I'm sorry about creating confusion there. I also checked the 1975 and 1976 yearbooks, and they do not have copyright information. Also, having checked the other two books I found nothing about Zepp Photo Centers, so now I am pretty sure that I was mistaken in my original assumption. I have the yearbooks because my dad was in Ira Glass' graduating class, so my dad offered to contact some of his high school friends who worked on yearbook to see if anyone still knows the name of the company that took the photo. If that doesn't work, I can try calling the school, though I'm not sure if they would still have that information. Would that be necessary?

The photo was probably taken in 1976, but it was published in the yearbook in 1977. It was published in the United States, and there is no copyright information anywhere in the book. I'm sorry if I misunderstood the reason it was taken down, at the time I was pretty new to the editing side of Misplaced Pages. So correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've gotten from these two responses is that I just need to provide a better description of the source of the photo? Thank you for all the help Judgmentalowl (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It really does sound as if this is PD-US-no notice. I don't think you'd need to call the school. And yes, I'd say that the only significant problem with the original description was that it didn't have a sufficient source description. Some time back, I uploaded an image that was scanned from a book in this same kind of situation; you may do well to start with its description page and simply change around the information so that it fits your book. Don't worry about the "A copy of this picture..." sentence; it's there because the image was published twice, and both books failed to include a copyright notice. Since the image presumably wasn't published anywhere except the yearbook, this sentence is completely unnecessary for your purposes. Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thank you again for all the help! Judgmentalowl (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Actually, one more question about this. The file was deleted from wikicommons, so should I simply reupload or should I request an undeletion? Which is more appropriate in this situation?Judgmentalowl (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If it were me, I would reupload it with all source and licensing information clearly stated. – Quadell 12:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Punta della Dogana interior

I'm looking for (ideally a free-use) image of Punta della Dogana's interior, but it's an art gallery, so I'm having some trouble. Would freedom of panorama work indoors for this use? Two potential images are and . Thanks czar · · 00:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

To answer my freedom of panorama question, I suppose not, since it's not from a public space. Anything I'm missing? czar · · 00:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Punta della Dogana has been around for hundreds of years, so you don't have to worry about any architect's copyright. You just have to be careful not to reproduce any of the copyrighted art inside. In my opinion, the second photo you link above would be fine. It doesn't reproduce copyrighted art in a meaningful way. – Quadell 13:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I heard similarly at Commons' copyright village pump. If anyone else has input, please drop me a talkback. Thanks, again!  czar · · 14:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Turner painting at The Tate

Can the image here, marked "© The British Museum", be uploaded for use at the article Newport Castle? Is permission required? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That painting is in the public domain. Sometimes British museums try to claim copyright on scans of their art, but neither U.S. law nor Commons policy consider a scan to introduce a new copyright. Feel free to upload it to Commons, where we have lots of other paintings by the artist. Be sure to tag it {{PD-art-auto-1923|1851}}, and use {{Creator:J. M. W. Turner}} as the author. – Quadell 21:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There a bit of discussion of British precedent in the article Bridgeman v. Corel (which is the oft-cited precedent in U.S. law); the implication is that it's unsettled law in the U.K. whether there can be a new copyright generated by making a direct photographic copy. However, Commons permits uploading it there (as a special case), irrespective of local law. TheFeds 04:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the advice. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of Missing Children

Are photographs distributed to help find missing children in the public domain? The photographs in question are these and are distributed by the Mexican government. The only relevant information I could find on the website is a note saying "some rights reserved" at the bottom of the page. Can these images be used in Misplaced Pages? Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no standard answer, and we'd need more details to be sure. Who is the photographer/artist, and under what terms did they release the rights, and to whom? Mexican government works are copyrightable (expires 100 years after publication, according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico). Would the context be appropriate for a fair use image? TheFeds 19:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Very unlikely. The images of the children are mostly family snapshots so the image belongs to the family member who took them, and the other half of the image is a generated image which may belong to the Mexican government but unlike some countries that doesn't make them PD. NtheP (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I will look into WP:FAIRUSE. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Diagram reproduction, copyright violation?

File:Georouting greedy variants.svg

The diagram mentioned above is reproduced verbatim from an image in the book: Dargie & Poellabauer: "Fundamentals of Wireless Sensor Networks, Theory and Practice, 2010, Wiley & Sons", ISBN: 978-0-470-99765-9

at page 186: Figure 7.15: "Forwarding strategies in location-based routing."

There is no mention of the original anywhere in the references.

Cheers, Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pforsell (talk • contribs) 13:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If this is a slavish copy of the original then, unless the book's illustrations are freely licenced, it may be a copyright violation. However, if it is based on common information anyone could draw, or could have drawn, a picture based on that data without it being a direct or nearly direct copy and they could then freely licence that image. Looking deeper, it looks like the uploader also wrote this article http://archive.cone.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/people/ruehrup/georouting-chapter-draft.pdf, though 2 years after uploading this image and 3 years before the reference you mention, as some of the images are very similar. Who copied who? This and the upoader's other image may well be his own but as he has not been around since 2008 we are unlikely to get his input. Personally, based on my investigation, I'm inclined to WP:AGF. ww2censor (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

RSVP. Irish Magazine

 Miss Bono 15:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not cut and paste information from any source, including magazines, into Misplaced Pages. You may add information from a magazine so long as it is written in your own words and summarizes the information in the article, but be sure to specify the source your information comes from. – Quadell 18:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't to copy and paste, I know the rules. Miss Bono 18:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, great! I'm not really familiar enough with RSVP Magazine to know whether it counts as a reliable source or not, but the folks at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard are the experts in that area. Perhaps you could ask there? – Quadell 19:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for both: John Lennon and RSVP... Miss Bono 19:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico Legislature

Is this disclaimer at possibly good enough to upload some photos of New Mexico Legislature members on here? – Connormah (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. The disclaimer says "The photographs of members on this site are owned by the State of New Mexico. They are provided courtesy of the New Mexico Legislature and may be used without obtaining permission." It says they can be used without requiring permission, period, and does not seem to allow for the possibility that permission would be required for any sort of use (such as commercial use or derivative works). That certainly sounds like an acceptable authorization. It's not very specific, but in my reading, it should be usable under {{Copyrighted free use}}. Perhaps we should make a specific template (similar to Commons:Template:PD-Bain) that restates the disclaimer. I think we should get wider community input first, though. – Quadell 19:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That seems sufficient. I don't see any implied copyright-related limitations on that licence statement (like duration, commercial works, revocability, etc.). We should also discuss whether that's an acceptable waiver of moral rights (to the extent that this is possible, and relevant in the U.S.). I don't know if a new template is really necessary—but it's no big deal to create one and then change it back to the generic if someone advances a compelling reason to do so. (Maybe a better way to do this would be to add a parameter to {{Copyrighted free use}} that incorporates a paragraph of licence text?) TheFeds 18:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have suggested just that at Template talk:Copyrighted free use. In the mean time, Connormah, you have two options. You can upload such images now, tag them with {{Copyrighted free use}}, and explain in text why the template applies. Or you can wait for the template change and perhaps save yourself a little work. – Quadell 15:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam military awards manual

I'd like to improve coverage of the Orders, decorations, and medals of South Vietnam and related articles with imagery from this manual, apparently published in 1967 by the government of the Republic of Vietnam (which fell to the North on 30 April 1975). There is no publication information or copyright notice in this apparently-complete scan of a copy that belonged to a US Army library. Scans of the same book (or the same scan) appear on two other sites (at least). Can I clip images from this source to Commons and/or enwiki, and how are they to be license-tagged? Thanks. —— 08:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam is a Berne Convention signatory, so the basic copyright lasts no less than 50 years after the author's death; is the author known? I don't know of any provision in Vietnamese law that recognizes collective (e.g. corporate) or state authorship (as distinct from ownership). (See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Vietnam, and the text of the copyright law posted there; note that I don't know if that's a valid translation, or whether it's an up-to-date edition.) If the author is unknown or unclear, the copyright is instead 50 years post-publication, and is owned by the State. I'm also not sure if there are any special rules relating to works from the former state of South Vietnam—whether those copyrights were abrogated by the conquest, recognized in their prior form, or recognized under the laws of the current state of Vietnam. TheFeds 18:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the last bit is the key. Assuming the government of the RoV was the author, did the new state of Vietnam legally inherit copyrights along with all the other assets of the RoV. Does it depend on the surrender documents? If I were to re-draw the ribbons myself, based on seeing the copyrighted work, is it my own work to release as I like? —— 16:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So the translation of the current law of Vietnam is here. Article 749.1(a), (b), and (d) seem to exempt this book, as it's clearly stated purpose is to honor and raise morale of the RoV and Allied forces, supporting what was the enemy of the current state. Article 749.2 seems to prevent me from visiting Vietnam after publishing (unless I want a rather extended stay, courtesy of the state). —— 17:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a fascinating point. I've asked about it over at Commons:Template talk:PD-Vietnam, and we'll see what develops. – Quadell 18:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A text-only book cover

This cover has only words and simple background and line. Should I upload it to Commons? --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That depends on what exactly you want to upload to Commons. If you want to upload that particular image, then that could be problematic. That image might be eligible for a separate copyright by the photographer due to the lightning and background. On the other hand, if you crop out the background, then the reflection effect on the cover might be de minimis and thus the image might be in the public domain because the cover is ineligible for copyright protection. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, if the reflection is not de minimis but the cover is ineligible for copyright protection (due to falling below the threshold for copyright protection), then this image cannot even be used as non-free content, because it would violate WP:NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair use: cropping image to extract logo

I have been working on the article for La Luz del Mundo Church and would like to add the church logo to the infobox under the fair use provision. I have looked through the organization website for an individual logo file, but have only been able to find the logo as part of a larger image. Taking this image as an example, can it be cropped so that only the logo remains? Would the cropping be justified under the fair use policy or would it be a copyright violation? Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be fine—you're using the logo simply to identify the organization. The criteria at WP:NFCC would allow this, and see WP:Logos for more information. Let us know if you need assistance with the fair use rationale (per that policy).

It would be best to crop out everything outside the blue circle (i.e. the blue gradient background and the drop shadow), and put it on a transparent background (if converting to PNG), or white (if remaining JPEG). You might consider other logos, such as can be found by searching (for example) Google Images for site:lldm.org or "La Luz del Mundo" logo. (There seem to be a couple other versions out there, like these: , , and , and this might be a better image to crop from, if you'd like a high-resolution JPEG from the main church website.) TheFeds 04:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, you have been extremely helpful. I am going to use the image you suggested. Ajaxfiore (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Logo of Border Security Force

Border Security Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

File:BSF Logo.svg

Whether this file allowed in commons are not Perumalism Chat 03:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: File:BSF Emblem.png and this discussion at WP:GL/ILL refer. Begoon  04:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like that logo is a "government work" created in 1965 or later in India. As such, the copyright will still be held by the state government until at least 2016. Perumalism's cleaned-up svg version is a derivative work of the original logo, and is not a free image. – Quadell 11:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That was the way I read it too - but it's good to have it confirmed. Cheers. Begoon  13:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

British Ministry of Defence Medals - copyrighting images

Does anyone know the correct way to licence images of medals?

My understanding is this:

1. If the medals are awarded to an individual and he/she photographs them and puts them on the wiki then no licence is required but acknowledgement must be made somewhere that the designs are Crown Copyright. Is this correct?

2. If the medals are pictured on an MOD website then the image can be reproduced using an Open Government Licence. Is this correct? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For 1 crown copyright in its basic form does not permit free use until decades later. However fair use on an article about the medal could apply. For some medals PD-simple would apply, or the design may be old enough for the crown copyright to have expired. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

On 2, if you find an image on www.defenceimagery.mod.uk then it is covered by the OGL. I think quite a few of the images have already been uploaded to Commons so a check is worthwhile. NtheP (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

On 1 - the information I have provided here has been supplied by the National Archives. Graeme is it possible you can explain why your opinion is different from theirs?

On 2. Copyright editors on Misplaced Pages are challenging the OGL used for images which appear on government sites clearly marked as covered by OGL. How does one advise them of this?

I have a clear objective on this. Virtually every military badge and medal I upload images of has been challenged by a copyright editor and I've been very confused about the variety of reasons they're giving for the "nominations for deletion". I want to be in a position that, where I upload an image with the correct licencing, copyright editors accept it without challenge. SonofSetanta (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

However I note that the license says: This licence does not cover the use of: ... military insignia ... Are medals insignia? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No - medals are not insignia. I have a separate issue with insignia. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that most medals are engraved, and engravings are three-dimensional works of art. It's not possible for the MoD to publish a medal on www.defenceimagery.mod.uk; it's only possible for them to publish a two-dimensional photograph which shows it from a particular point of view. The photographs from that site are clearly released under the OGL; it's far from self-evident that the licence applies to the underlying three-dimensional work its entirety. This means that while it is fine to upload to Commons a medal photograph you found on www.defenceimagery.mod.uk, it's debatable whether it's OK to upload your own photographs of the medals.

As an aside, why do you keep using the term "copyright editor"? Generally speaking Wikimedia contributors don't have specialized roles. It is everyone's duty here to ensure that text and other media that they and others contribute is freely licensed, or specifically exempted from such licensing, and to challenge or remove suspect contributions. Very few people here focus primarily or exclusively on licensing issues; most of us, like yourself, are content creators and editors who spend most of their time producing, updating, and improving encyclopedic material. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have an e-mail from the National Archives making it quite clear that it is ok to upload pictures of ones own medals as long as a comment is made to inform readers that the original design is Crown Copyright. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I use the term "copyright editors" because there appears to be a certain group, yourself amongst them, who specialise in this kind of editing. I was under the assumption that you had some sort of special training and accorded you a certain kudos because of it. Your comments do explain why there seems to be so much doubt amongst editors doing this work about the various aspects of Crown Copyright. I had myself down as a numbskull who was just learning but I recognise now that my opinion is just as valuable as yours and my word carries just as much weight. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your opinions are just as valuable as anyone else's here, and the facts and arguments we bring to discussions touching on licensing issues carry equal weight, insofar as they're supportable by what is known and can be verified about Wikimedia policies, copyright law, and the licences of the media in question. The problem is that we don't always have complete information which unambiguously indicates that it's possible for us to publish certain things here, and in cases where the doubt is significant, we must err on the side of caution and assume that we lack this permission. The point of nominating media for deletion is to attract attention to cases where there is such doubt so that other contributors can bring further information and arguments under consideration. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your e-mail from the National Archives, I'd suggest that you submit this to OTRS, who can evaluate its applicability to this scenario in confidence (i.e., without you having to divulge your identity publically). —Psychonaut (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand that now. At first it was like Satan and his imps had descended upon me and I was spending all of my time trying to prevent images from being deleted. It was a bit annoying given that some of them were images I had taken and my own veracity was being called into question. Fortunately that has been resolved. I have just received another e-mail from MOD Imagery and they're going to give me a direct link to someone elsewhere in MOD who is a copyright expert. I'd like to share these e-mails with you so if you reply to my e-mail I'll send them over to you, and anyone else involved who wants to see them. From this contact I hope to finally resolve the issue of Crown Copyright on insignia and medals. Why would I want to send them to OTRS? The discussion is between a restricted number of people and my e-mail address is in my username here. There's no information in my e-mails which could identify where I live and my name is a common one. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason for sending the emails to OTRS is that they are held and can be referred to in future. So if you upload an image and want to apply the same email agreement to it, all you have to reference is the OTRS ticket number so any of the OTRS volunteers can verify what you're saying. Passing emails around would mean that you have to re-share the emails every time an upload is questioned. NtheP (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I see - ok, thank you for that. That'll be my course of action in the future. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Air Serbia - Airbus A319.jpg

File:Air Serbia - Airbus A319.jpg

This is not a real image, but a drawing. Therefore, I doubt the uploader is the author of it. Just see this.--Jetstreamer  20:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a better link to that image, as used on the external site noted above. Also note the date of the slideshow can't be counted on—it looks like they just keep adding material without noting the actual date. Here's another link, which lists the image as "Courtesy, JAT Airways". The user claims it as their own work, so I'll inquire. If no explanation is forthcoming, it would be a case for commons:Com:Deletion requests. TheFeds 06:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Can I use a licensed image?

I have an image I want to upload and went through a lengthy process to get permission from the publisher to use it on Misplaced Pages. When I want to upload it there was no suitable option and I found text that said not to upload "any file that is licensed for use exclusively on Misplaced Pages, or is free except that the free license excludes commercial use.". Does these mean I can't use the file even though I have permission from the publisher?

I notice that other people simply make their own version of the image, check the "entirely my own work" option and then use the original as the source to combat WP:OR claims... is that a valid thing to do? Tobus2 (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes permission for Misplaced Pages is not enough for use here, instead it must be a free license for every kind of use. WP:Permit describes what to grant and how to do it. Otherwise if you make your own image, say by taking a photo yourself, then you can be free to grant the license required. However if you get someone else's image and then say it is entirely your own work, that is a copyright infringement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And WP:CONSENT has an example mail and more information about how to verify such a permission per mail. GermanJoe (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So it's OK if create my own image based on the original and upload that instead? Tobus2 (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes... so long as your new image isn't a derivative work. So, for instance, if you draw an image of Mickey Mouse, it's a derivative work of Disney's copyrighted character. Or if you trace over a copyrighted drawing and make only minimal changes, so that the original author's creative content is still visible in your image, then it's a derivative work. But if it's an image of a chart, and you recreate the chart without copying the original author's color scheme or positioning choices, then that's fine. Each situation is different, and I don't know what sort of image it is, so it's hard to say for sure. Can you link to (or describe) what the image is? – Quadell 12:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The image I got permission to use on Misplaced Pages is and I haven't made my "own version" yet - I was planning to remove the arrows and their associated text but pretty much keep it in the same form (a bit like which I couldn't get permission for). I intend to use it next to text explaining the model from the same paper. If you could give me some indication of how much it would need to be changed that would be great.

The image that first gave me the indication I could 'recreate' an image and upload as my own work is this one which is a recreation of . I should disclose than I'm currently in a circular discussios with the "recreator" of this map as to the verifiability of it's content, so if it turns out it's copyright violation it would solve a problem for me.

Tobus2 (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The map example is a good example of when creating your own image is allowed, and is not a copyright violation. (Sorry... you'll have to deal with it in terms of verifiability and accuracy, not copyright.) In your example, if you recreate the image in Paint or Gimp or whatever, it will most likely be fine. It's just a tree chart, with genetic markers, right? The idea itself isn't copyrightable, so the only issues would be the exact angles, colors, typefaces, and arrangements of arrows. So long as you don't trace it exactly, I don't see it being a copyright problem. – Quadell 22:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Art of videogames-Advances in mechanics.jpg

File:Art of videogames-Advances in mechanics.jpg includes a series of ostensibly copyrighted screenshots. The uploader said they may count as de minimis since they are blurry and small, although the main subject of the shot. Looking for a second opinion. czar · · 16:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it meaningfully violates the copyrights of any of the game creators. That said, I don't think it's a very good image. – Quadell 17:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions are welcome for a better free image that fairly represents the concept of the template where this image is used. Diego (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Among the video games whose art is most notable, I suspect few if any are free content. It may not be possible to appropriately illustrate the template with an image. It's fine for templates to not include images. – Quadell 19:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Permission given by copyright owner

Hi, Kindly visit this link: http://www.mischief-films.com/presse/der-weg-nach-mekka and scroll down to the bottom of the page. You will see a copyright statement that, using Google Translator, translates into

"Please note the following Credit: When using the evidence "Photo: Mischief Films" the use of the images provided here is free of charge."

I want to use images present on that webpage in the body of a Misplaced Pages article. I suppose the problem is: the owner has allowed usage of these images, but hasn't specified under which license. Kindly point me towards the appropriate License Tag and Description Template for this case. Looking forward to guidance. Thanks. -- Fasi100 (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the most appropriate is {{Attribution}} with appropriate parameters. NtheP (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

IBM in atoms

Is File:IBM in atoms.gif actually PD-text/trademark, rather than fair use? Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 21:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No it is not just text but a "photo" of a construct they made. The construction out of atoms would be PD-text, but the photo, which includes defects and artifacts is not so simple to be PD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ireland Government License

Any suggestions for how I would go about finding out if the Irish Government's license (which it uses for all kinds of material including photos, etc.) is compatible with Misplaced Pages's license (or CC-BY-SA)?

The license is here: http://psi.gov.ie/files/2010/03/PSI-Licence.pdf

--RA (✍) 23:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages copyright
• Misplaced Pages help forums