|
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
---|
![]() Archives |
||
---|---|---|
|
||
- How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
- On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
- From the page Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
- For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
- Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
- Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
- Hit Save page.
- If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
- How to ask a question
- To ask a new question hit the "Click here to ask your question" link above.
- Please sign your question by typing
~~~~
at the end. - Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
- 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.
Contents
- 1 Copyright status conflict?
- 2 Peștera Muierilor
- 3 BAA Logo copyright correct?
- 4 Does the historical photograph rule apply to animals?
- 5 copyright question regarding the Carlos Cazurro image
- 6 Does copyvio apply to sandboxes?
- 7 IambakeyOkuk.jpg on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Iambakey_Okuk
- 8 Copyright status of book cover image File:The_Last_Raja_of_West_Pakistan_(Cover_Photo).jpg
- 9 Image taken from a newspaper or official website of that person
- 10 KML representation of text description
- 11 Image Files Fail to Load (Red Link)
- 12 Question about a tag posted to my user talk page
- 13 Need help
- 14 Is oil painting open to public viewing free content?
- 15 Can these images be uploaded to commons?
- 16 Copyright tagging is required
Copyright status conflict?
Yesterday FastilyBot tagged File:Logo of the Kokoda Track Foundation.png with "BOT: Tag file with copyright status conflict". I moved the file here from Commons a couple of years ago (after it was deleted on Commons) following the advice at the Commons deletion review, which is probably worth reading (along with the original deletion discussion). Note that I was not the original uploader on commons – it was uploaded by an empoyee of the Kokoda Track Foundation. The file is the logo of the Kokoda Track Foundation and consists merely of a PD image with "The Kokoda Track Foundation" in Calibri typeface below the image. It is currently tagged {{Non-free logo}} {{PD-AustraliaGov}} and {{PD-ineligible}}. This is likely why FastilyBot is unhappy with the tagging. I added the {{Non-free logo}} and fair use rationale based on the advice from the Commons deletion revue. The file should probably have stayed at commons, since I'm 99.99% sure it's public domain, but it was argued that adding the text could somehow make the entire logo protected under copyright in Australia. So, the question is: how should it be tagged? Leave it as is (and possibly tell FastilyBot to ignore it)? Remove {{Non-free logo}} (and possibly move back to commons at some future time)? Remove {{PD-AustraliaGov}} and {{PD-ineligible}}? Something else? Mojoworker (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'd remove the PD-ineligible. The image is PD in Australia but because Australia is only 50 years from publication, compared to the US's longer term, it will not be PD in the US for some time. It cannot be stored at Commons since Commons follows US law, and requires the image to be PD in the US and host country to be used here, so having it here and marked non-free is fully appropriate. The PD-ineligible is the tag in conflict because the image actually fails that, the photographic part make it a potential copyrightable image (though the timing becomes an issue). --MASEM (t) 00:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is in the public domain in Australia if it was published more than 50 years ago. We only know when it was created but not when it was first published. It could be that it remained unpublished until the 1960s or the 1970s, in which case it is still copyrighted in Australia.
- In the United States, it is probably in the public domain if it was published before 1946. If not, then the copyright expires 95 years from publication (if published before 1978). --Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- According to the Wikipedia article, the organization was established in 2003, so it can be assumed that its logo was not published before 2003. If this information is correct, the photograph, used as one of the components of the logo, is in the public domain in Australia. And in the United States, if it was published before 1989. Commons considers that the addition of the name of the organization to a public domain photograph might create a derivative work copyrighted in Australia. The question for en.wikipedia is what is the status in the United States of the logo made from a public domain photograph, below which is added the name of the organization, and does it make a difference for the copyright status in the United States if that derivative is copyrighted or not in Australia. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Masem and Stefan2: not just published date, but for photographs, the created/taken date. See {{PD-Australia}} (and the link above that Asclepias provided), which has more detail. Note B1 – Photographs (where the author is known) : "PD in US if...taken prior to 1 January 1946" and E1 – Commonwealth or State government held photographs or engravings: "PD in US if...Technically material created prior to 1 January 1946}". I guess D "Published editions" (the typographical arrangement and layout of a published work. eg. newsprint) could apply to the "the Kokoda Track Foundation" text, but that hardly seems an "edition"... Mojoworker (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly, the issue is the photograph part - the text logo is not the issue here. The photograph, going by the Commons discussion, was PD in Australia in 1992. For the US, the US will only respect the PD nature if that photograph was originally published without failing to mark up or meet copyright requirements for the US (per [1]), since the image was PD in Australia before 1996. If the photograph was marked with copyright, then we have to wait 95 from its publication date (which seems to be at least around 2030-ish). Unfortunately, this factor does not seem to be known, and hence it makes sense to treat it as PD-Australia (it clearly meets that), but it is not a free image for en.wiki as stored in servers in the US where it remains likely under copyright, until we can prove the photograph failed to have the right copyright markings. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Masem: This is confusing. At the {{PD-Australia}} template why are there two separate columns labeled "Copyright has expired in Australia if ..." and "As of URAA date material was PD in US if..."? Doesn't the last column imply that's the US status? Looks like URAA is Uruguay Round Agreements Act, FWIW. Mojoworker (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Because foreign copyrights are a mess, unfortunately. Here at en.wiki, we are looking to what the copyright is under US law. When it comes to works first published in a foreign country that we have reciprocal copyright agreements with (like Australia), we have to use the URAA to determine if the US treats the image as PD - just because the work is PD in the foreign country doesn't necessarily make it PD in the US. Hence for en.wiki's determination of free or non-free image status, we do need to look at the last column in the template. (I note that the Cornell link I included above does not consider specific country-oriented details, so let's stick with the template here). So obviously this is a B1 case (regardless if the photographer was a government employee), so the question becomes if the photograph was taken before 1946, which is not clear. If the photograph was taken before then, then we would consider the photo PD, and would treat the derivative logo as PD-Australia and PD-textlogo (removing the nonfree) but because AU has UK-like threshold of creativity, the complete logo can't be transferred to Commons. If the photograph was after 1946, then we would treat it as non-free with PD-Australia. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why exactly do you doubt the 25 December 1942 date documented unanimously everywhere for this photo, on Commons, at the Australian War Memorial and in many other publications? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't doubting it, I was unaware we had a date for the photograph part. If its documented 1942, then the photo is PD in the US as well as Australia. The logo that includes the photo and text is PD-USonly since the combination of a PD photo and typeface is not creative enough, but likely copyrightable in Australia under "sweat of the brow" originality. So we should treat it as free, remove the PD-Australia tag (since that only applies to the photo, not the derivative logo), add PD-USonly/do not copy to commons, and should be okay, documenting all factors relating to the photo itself appropriately. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note that {{PD-Australia}} isn't entirely accurate. It says As of URAA date material was PD in US if... but it should say As of URAA date material was PD in Australia if... It is in the public domain in the United States provided that it 1) satisfies
{{PD-1923}}
, 2) satisfies {{PD-US-unpublished}} or 3) it was in the public domain in Australia as of the URAA date (see the column in the template) and fell out of copyright in the United States for some reason before 1 March 1989 (then it's {{PD-URAA}}). c:Commons:Subsisting copyright describes when something did or didn't fall out of copyright in the United States before 1 March 1989. The main situation where an Australian work from the 1940s hasn't have fallen out of copyright in the United States is if it wasn't published before 1 March 1989. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note that {{PD-Australia}} isn't entirely accurate. It says As of URAA date material was PD in US if... but it should say As of URAA date material was PD in Australia if... It is in the public domain in the United States provided that it 1) satisfies
- I wasn't doubting it, I was unaware we had a date for the photograph part. If its documented 1942, then the photo is PD in the US as well as Australia. The logo that includes the photo and text is PD-USonly since the combination of a PD photo and typeface is not creative enough, but likely copyrightable in Australia under "sweat of the brow" originality. So we should treat it as free, remove the PD-Australia tag (since that only applies to the photo, not the derivative logo), add PD-USonly/do not copy to commons, and should be okay, documenting all factors relating to the photo itself appropriately. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why exactly do you doubt the 25 December 1942 date documented unanimously everywhere for this photo, on Commons, at the Australian War Memorial and in many other publications? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Because foreign copyrights are a mess, unfortunately. Here at en.wiki, we are looking to what the copyright is under US law. When it comes to works first published in a foreign country that we have reciprocal copyright agreements with (like Australia), we have to use the URAA to determine if the US treats the image as PD - just because the work is PD in the foreign country doesn't necessarily make it PD in the US. Hence for en.wiki's determination of free or non-free image status, we do need to look at the last column in the template. (I note that the Cornell link I included above does not consider specific country-oriented details, so let's stick with the template here). So obviously this is a B1 case (regardless if the photographer was a government employee), so the question becomes if the photograph was taken before 1946, which is not clear. If the photograph was taken before then, then we would consider the photo PD, and would treat the derivative logo as PD-Australia and PD-textlogo (removing the nonfree) but because AU has UK-like threshold of creativity, the complete logo can't be transferred to Commons. If the photograph was after 1946, then we would treat it as non-free with PD-Australia. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I did not find a copyright notice in the 1943 book. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Masem: This is confusing. At the {{PD-Australia}} template why are there two separate columns labeled "Copyright has expired in Australia if ..." and "As of URAA date material was PD in US if..."? Doesn't the last column imply that's the US status? Looks like URAA is Uruguay Round Agreements Act, FWIW. Mojoworker (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly, the issue is the photograph part - the text logo is not the issue here. The photograph, going by the Commons discussion, was PD in Australia in 1992. For the US, the US will only respect the PD nature if that photograph was originally published without failing to mark up or meet copyright requirements for the US (per [1]), since the image was PD in Australia before 1996. If the photograph was marked with copyright, then we have to wait 95 from its publication date (which seems to be at least around 2030-ish). Unfortunately, this factor does not seem to be known, and hence it makes sense to treat it as PD-Australia (it clearly meets that), but it is not a free image for en.wiki as stored in servers in the US where it remains likely under copyright, until we can prove the photograph failed to have the right copyright markings. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Masem and Stefan2: not just published date, but for photographs, the created/taken date. See {{PD-Australia}} (and the link above that Asclepias provided), which has more detail. Note B1 – Photographs (where the author is known) : "PD in US if...taken prior to 1 January 1946" and E1 – Commonwealth or State government held photographs or engravings: "PD in US if...Technically material created prior to 1 January 1946}". I guess D "Published editions" (the typographical arrangement and layout of a published work. eg. newsprint) could apply to the "the Kokoda Track Foundation" text, but that hardly seems an "edition"... Mojoworker (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- According to the Wikipedia article, the organization was established in 2003, so it can be assumed that its logo was not published before 2003. If this information is correct, the photograph, used as one of the components of the logo, is in the public domain in Australia. And in the United States, if it was published before 1989. Commons considers that the addition of the name of the organization to a public domain photograph might create a derivative work copyrighted in Australia. The question for en.wikipedia is what is the status in the United States of the logo made from a public domain photograph, below which is added the name of the organization, and does it make a difference for the copyright status in the United States if that derivative is copyrighted or not in Australia. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Commons does not seem to dispute the public domain status of the photograph, hosted on Commons. Commons questions the status in Australia of the logo made from that public domain photograph with the addition of a name. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- The advice, to which you refer above, by one of the Commons users, was to upload the image to en.wikipedia either as non-free logo *or* as a public domain image with a combo of PD tags, it was not to tag the image as both a non-free logo and a PD image. I understand that you wanted to be safe, on one hand tagging the image as PD because that is what it is, and on the other hand tagging it as non-free logo, just in case someone would dispute the PD status, so the image could be kept anyway and be used in the article about the organization. In other words, you were telling the readers that the logo was certainly fine on en.wikipedia for one of the two reasons, although you were leaving the readers choose which. There's logic to it when seen like that, but that created the conflict noticed by the bot, because it's apparently illogical to tag something as both free and not free. It is a bit strange to see the explanation of why the image is actually in the public domain inserted into a template for a non-free use rationale. I agree with you that that logo would probably be public domain in the United States (as essentially a reproduction of a public domain photograph and the name of the organization in simple letters). It may be a stretch for Commons to consider that logo potentially above the threshold of originality in Australia, but even if it is, I don't think that would make it copyrighted in the United States if it is not above the threshold of originality in the United States. Another question could be to decide if the name of an organization is copyrightable as such in the United States, independently of the look of the letters in which it is written. To answer your question, maybe it is possible to just remove the bot notice and leave everything as it is. Or, if any tag must be removed, then make your choice between the two options, as has been advised by the Commons user. If, as it seems it is, that logo is in the public domain in the United States, then in theory the tag that should be removed is the non-free logo tag. Technically, the PD-Australia tag may not be necessary either, as the wording of the PD-ineligible tag may be inclusive enough to cover the fact that the logo is made from components that are all common property in the United States, the photographic component because its copyright is expired and the textual component because it is simple text in a simple font. But the PD-Australia tag could be kept too, although users will have to understand that it's there as additional information about the photographic element. Alternatively, if you believe it's safer, you could choose to keep the non-free logo tag and then remove the two PD tags. Either way, there's no certainty that someone will not decide to dispute the status. If it is tagged as non-free, someone may complain because it is actually in the public domain and so it should be tagged as public domain. If it is tagged as public domain, someone may complain because they're not sure if it is. I think your explanation in your own words on the description page is very good, so whatever you choose to do with the tags, I think you should keep the clear explanation. It makes things much easier for the reader. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. I'm tempted to leave it as is, even if that means the {{Wrong-license}} tag stays on there, but I'll ask Fastily if there is an ignore setting for the Bot. Mojoworker (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks all. After the additional discussion above. I think it makes the most sense to tag with either {{PD-USonly}} or {{PD-URAA}}, remove the non-free fair use info, and link to this discussion, which I will do shortly. Mojoworker (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. I'm tempted to leave it as is, even if that means the {{Wrong-license}} tag stays on there, but I'll ask Fastily if there is an ignore setting for the Bot. Mojoworker (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Peștera Muierilor
Hi, I'm interested in using these two relevant pictures taken from this published journal article: Figure 1 and Figure 4 from http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17196.full. Is it ok to do so? Would this qualify as a fair use claim? Thanks, Fraenir (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see what fair use claim you could make here. Please elaborate. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
BAA Logo copyright correct?
I've just been looking at this BAA logo and it has the logo copyright tag on it. However I'm not too sure that it meets the threshold of originality given it is essentially just three letters and three triangles. Given that the Virgin Atlantic logo is deemed to not meet the threshold of originality and the fact that BAA no longer use it due to becoming Heathrow Airport Holdings, is the current copyright tag correct or am I correct in assuming that it does not actually meet the threshold of originality? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- The UK has a much lower threshold of originality compared to the US; they use "sweat of the brow"-type determinations, so any creativity, like the green part of the BAA logo, would be protected by copyright. It would fall as PD-USonly. I also disagree that the VA logo is PD as well for the same reasons (the coloring on the wing aspect is unique enough to meet UK thresholds). --MASEM (t) 13:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Does the historical photograph rule apply to animals?
If I find an article about a famous animal who is dead can I use the same image rationale as I would for a person? I would assume so but I would just like to be sure.*Treker (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- The actual article is about the animal? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. I had this article in mind but in general as well.*Treker (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't remember the question ever having come up before, but in a full article about that animal, I see no reason to treat it any differently. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, we do frequently illustrate articles of deceased people with non-free images of them when no free ones are available, for identification purposes. I think the same logic can apply to animals for which no free image can be created or found.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't remember the question ever having come up before, but in a full article about that animal, I see no reason to treat it any differently. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. I had this article in mind but in general as well.*Treker (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
copyright question regarding the Carlos Cazurro image
Dear Wiki, I have been following all the necessary steps to correct the copyright question regarding the Carlos Cazurro image: Maureen Selwood ANIMAC festival 2008. Carlos has sent permission: I hereby affirm that I, Carlos Cazurro, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work depicted in the media attached to this eMail. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
We got an email saying Carlos has to send written permission!! This seems a bit strange. Can you let me know how to correct this? It is getting a bit difficult as Carlos lives in Spain and has been great in assisting this but doesn't know how to proceed. Please advise asap.
Thanks, Weebuefweebuef Weebuefweebuef (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Actually it is quite easy and physicial location is no problem. If Carlos Cazurro is the copyright holder then all he has to do is verify his permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT making sure to note the names of the image. I assume it was File:Maureen Selwood at ANIMAC International Animation Festival 2008.jpg which was deleted because no permission was verified, but if everything check out it will be restored by the OTRS team who deal with permissions. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Does copyvio apply to sandboxes?
If I copy-and-paste a large section of a copyright publication to my sandbox in preparation for paraphrasing, but then save the sandbox page before the paraphrasing, is this copyright violation? DrChrissy (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, if the copyright terms are not compatible with ours. "Paraphrasing" also is often not a good idea because you can end up with a derivative work; c.f WP:CLOP.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- In addition, it can be or lead to problematic WP:Plagiarism. Note, "paraphrasing" is a nuanced concept (used often rather vaguely in WP discussions) involving degrees from the original. In general, where possible, the WP writing process aimed for is putting it in your own words, while staying true to the verifiable idea. If actually paraphrasing, one should explicitly identify the original author in the text, itself. (In short, DrChrissy, what you describe seems poor process and can be problematic, under cv and plag)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks both for your help - I wonder if copyvio in sandboxes is widely known about. A follow up question, please. How do I find out if copyright terms are compatible with ours? I deal mainly with science articles, so, as an example, copyright in Elsevier science journals. DrChrissy (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- In addition, it can be or lead to problematic WP:Plagiarism. Note, "paraphrasing" is a nuanced concept (used often rather vaguely in WP discussions) involving degrees from the original. In general, where possible, the WP writing process aimed for is putting it in your own words, while staying true to the verifiable idea. If actually paraphrasing, one should explicitly identify the original author in the text, itself. (In short, DrChrissy, what you describe seems poor process and can be problematic, under cv and plag)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It can get quite tricky quite quickly. Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Licenses is the best I can find quickly. These days you'd probably be looking for a Creative Commons licence which permits commercial use - CC BY-SA. You'd need to avoid licences which have Noncommercial (NC) or No Derivative (ND) restrictions - see, for instance the foot of this CC page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- If NOINDEX is used, so a sandbox no longer appears on web searches, is it then okay to use the sandbox to rework material containing copy violations. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not. Publishing materials without the consent of the copyright holder is infringement. It does not matter where or how you publish it. Even NOINDEXed websites are publishing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- But that begs the question. Can it really be said to be "published" on the web if it is not publicly available through web searches? Even if it is in some sense legally published, then presumably it is still okay to work fixing copy violation in the sandbox providing the copied parts are enclosed in quotes. Could users be given truly private sandboxes, accessible only with their password, so they can use them for work on copyright issues? Is there any point where common sense can intervene, and Wikipedia editors can be given working tools to fix copy violations? Too often Wikipedia discussions on copyright and paraphrasing are met merely with rigid censorious judgements, and are not relieved or balanced with helpful and practical ways of actually dealing with the issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- It can be said to be published if, by inputting a URL, the system returns a page with the information in it. Really. Please rest assured on that point. Indexability is entirely beside the point. "rigid censorious judgements". Yup. Copyright law is, err, law; not a cuddly thing. "Practical ways of actually dealing with the issues". Use a local text editor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- But are password protected pages legally published? Web design applications allow users to develop applications on the web before formally "publishing" them. Why can not Wikipedia do the same for its content builders? Working with a text editor is not the same thing as working in a Wikipedia sandbox which interprets wiki markup. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's called copyright. It's the action of copying that is problematic. It matters not whether there's a password or not. And in the case of sandboxes, there is not a password. I appreciate that a text editor is second best. Such is the protection of intellectual property: it brings with it costs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, it's a bit more nuanced than that. Making copies for personal use is (mostly) permitted. I can photocopy a book I have. I can even go to a library and photocopy a book I don't have. I can even upload that copy to a web drive. I can even send that copy to you by email. Here it's content on the internet that's behind a password and accessible to more people than me, but it's not considered publishing. If I start to hand out that web drive password to enough people, or send that email to a dozens, then it turns into publishing instead of personal use, though I gather that this varies by jurisdiction. For a legal definition, see c:COM:Publication. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- So then it would be legally possible for Wikipedia to provide established users with personal sandboxes with viewing rights restricted in such a way that they can rehabilitate text with copyright issues. The foundation won't of course, because the idea they might do something to facilitate content building is not part of their culture. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Technically speaking, "private drafts" have been discussed and rejected because they could be used to store unsavoury things.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- This should be a purely pragmatic and legal issue. If the drafts are truly private, then, like private thoughts, why should it concern anyone else whether or not the occasional one was "unsavoury"? Perhaps a control freak might be upset if he or she was seriously obsessed with playing God and wanted to remove everything that might conceivably be naughty from the world. But surely Wikipedia wouldn't have anyone like that controlling policy? --Epipelagic (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Technically speaking, "private drafts" have been discussed and rejected because they could be used to store unsavoury things.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- So then it would be legally possible for Wikipedia to provide established users with personal sandboxes with viewing rights restricted in such a way that they can rehabilitate text with copyright issues. The foundation won't of course, because the idea they might do something to facilitate content building is not part of their culture. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, it's a bit more nuanced than that. Making copies for personal use is (mostly) permitted. I can photocopy a book I have. I can even go to a library and photocopy a book I don't have. I can even upload that copy to a web drive. I can even send that copy to you by email. Here it's content on the internet that's behind a password and accessible to more people than me, but it's not considered publishing. If I start to hand out that web drive password to enough people, or send that email to a dozens, then it turns into publishing instead of personal use, though I gather that this varies by jurisdiction. For a legal definition, see c:COM:Publication. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's called copyright. It's the action of copying that is problematic. It matters not whether there's a password or not. And in the case of sandboxes, there is not a password. I appreciate that a text editor is second best. Such is the protection of intellectual property: it brings with it costs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- But are password protected pages legally published? Web design applications allow users to develop applications on the web before formally "publishing" them. Why can not Wikipedia do the same for its content builders? Working with a text editor is not the same thing as working in a Wikipedia sandbox which interprets wiki markup. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- It can be said to be published if, by inputting a URL, the system returns a page with the information in it. Really. Please rest assured on that point. Indexability is entirely beside the point. "rigid censorious judgements". Yup. Copyright law is, err, law; not a cuddly thing. "Practical ways of actually dealing with the issues". Use a local text editor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- But that begs the question. Can it really be said to be "published" on the web if it is not publicly available through web searches? Even if it is in some sense legally published, then presumably it is still okay to work fixing copy violation in the sandbox providing the copied parts are enclosed in quotes. Could users be given truly private sandboxes, accessible only with their password, so they can use them for work on copyright issues? Is there any point where common sense can intervene, and Wikipedia editors can be given working tools to fix copy violations? Too often Wikipedia discussions on copyright and paraphrasing are met merely with rigid censorious judgements, and are not relieved or balanced with helpful and practical ways of actually dealing with the issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not. Publishing materials without the consent of the copyright holder is infringement. It does not matter where or how you publish it. Even NOINDEXed websites are publishing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Tagishsimon said above "It can be said to be published if, by inputting a URL, the system returns a page with the information in it." Does this mean if a WP article contains a copyvio and an editor comes along and edits the article (unrelated to the copyvio) and then saves it (i.e. publishes it), that editor is violating copyright? DrChrissy (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Better to just ask Tagishsimon for reliable sources confirming his assertions, since it seems from above that his assertions are questionable. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
IambakeyOkuk.jpg on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Iambakey_Okuk
This photo is in wide circulation and I believe it should be considered public domain. I received a copy from Iambakey Okuk himself before his death in 1986 along with some other I will scan and add to the article. How should I mark these photos to satisfy the copyright conditions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisryder (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Being "in wide circulation" implies nothing about the image's copyright status. For reasons why an image might be in public domain, see WP:PD. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)r
Copyright status of book cover image File:The_Last_Raja_of_West_Pakistan_(Cover_Photo).jpg
Hi, I spotted this image File:The_Last_Raja_of_West_Pakistan_(Cover_Photo).jpg recently and I opened a discussion with the uploader (Abhinav619) on their talk page (See here). The uploader says the original copyright holder has released the image into public domain and he has a written permission. However, the image is tagged as "Own work" and the permission is not evident here. I'm not very well versed with IUP but I feel either the licensing needs to be corrected or the evidence needs to be checked and stated on the file page. I'm not sure what are the next steps - use OTRS? Can someone else help out with this? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Please guide me on this? I will share the written declaration that due permission had been provided. The owner is non well-versed with Wiki, hence passed the image to me to do the needful. Abhinav619 (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Abhinav619 (and Lemongirl1942). I think perhaps a couple of things need to happen to resolve the situation. The image tagging should describe who the work was by - so Own Work changed to the illustrator's details. The written declaration needs to be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and a template {{OTRS pending}} placed on the image's talk page ... all this is discussed here. Make sure the email references the image by stating the URL of the image on wikipedia - presumably commons, if it is public domain. The idea is that the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team satisfy themselves about the permission and add an OTRS ticket onto the image talk page. Everyone goes home happy. I'm sorry, Abhinav619, that you're being dragged through this, but Lemongirl1942 is absolutely right to police claims of public domain applied to images which do not appear on the face of them to be public domain - i.e. are within the class of images which we expect to be under copyright. I hope it all works out well. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Tagishsimon and Lemongirl1942, thanks for the brief. The needful would be done. Abhinav619 (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Image taken from a newspaper or official website of that person
What if I don't know who holds the copyrights but is taken from a newspaper or official website of that person(Governor of the state in my case)? How do i remove the tag after answering the questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haldipoor (talk • contribs) 08:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the image c:File:Viken Joshi.jpg that you uploaded to the commons, or to a different image? Newspapers often own their own images but also acquire them from photo libraries and other news organisations and they each own the copyright to their own images. Often a newspaper will provide an attribution line near the image, such as Getty Images or a named photographer. Unless an image is specifically noted as being freely licenced you have to presume it is copyright to someone and you will need their permission, unless it is old enough to have fallen in to the public domain. Generally most images you find on the internet are copyright. Provide a link to the image you are interested in and we will review it and provide guidance. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
KML representation of text description
My objective is to be able to provide accurate boundaries for Australian wine regions (Australian Geographical Indication). These have a textual legal description, such as the one found at https://www.wineaustralia.com/en/Production%20and%20Exporting/Register%20of%20Protected%20GIs%20and%20Other%20Terms/Geographical%20Indications/New%20South%20Wales/Southern%20New%20South%20Wales/Tumbarumba.aspx The website provides a map as an indication of where the region is, as a Google Maps mashup. From the page above, I could click on "view in a larger map" then from the resulting page, use the menu to "Download KML". I deleted the text and uploaded the remainder to the KML page corresponding to {{Attached KML}}. The result shows the boundaries as I intended in the WikiMiniAtlas, however I am uncertain on whether I have stolen someone else's intellectual property. If I have, I need to find guidance on what steps I must take myself to create a copyright-free version of the text description that can display on the WikiMiniAtlas (and/or a locator map). My current proof-of-concept is visible in the mini atlas at Tumbarumba wine region. I hope this is the right place to start asking. Thank you. --Scott Davis Talk 11:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Image Files Fail to Load (Red Link)
File:VSkmCalendarP1.PNG File:VTanzaniaGregCalL1.PNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nghwaya (talk • contribs) 12:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Question about a tag posted to my user talk page
Please help me with the tagging posted to my user talk page. My question was posted there. --Nerdvana (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Need help
I'm uploading my own work picture and it keeps on getting deleted And been giving warnings i Didn't mean to delete anyone message but I was trying to figure this wiki thing out
This was the picture I uploaded here is the link saying its for public use https://pixabay.com/photo-1411705/
I don't have my own website but everyone uses my pictures the models and one of the model is verified by Facebook And she even give the rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroonazizi (talk • contribs) 02:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see that you ever uploaded any images here. Can you be more specific? Perhaps the image was not licensed freely on the pixabay site. "Public use" does not mean freely licensed that we would accept. Can you provide a link that does not force us to register to see the image you are talking about? If you have an issue with other people using your images you will have to consult an intellectual property lawyer as we cannot give you any legal advise. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Is oil painting open to public viewing free content?
Hello Wikiphiles. I have a questions about free content: I want to add a photo to a prominent legal professor Herbert Hovenkamp from the law school I attended. There is an oil painting of him hanging in our law building (we're a public land-grant institution) and anyone may freely enter the building and view this painting -- it's on public display. Can I use a photo of this oil painting for his Wikipedia page? I would ask to take his photo for Wikipedia but I don't want to be a weirdo. Thanks!RedDarling (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi RedDarling. "Free" in this context means "free from copyright protection"; it doesn't mean downloaded for free or photographed for free. I think the only way to answer your question would be to verify the copyright status of the oil painting as explained in c:Commons:Derivative works. If the painting is old enough to be no longer protected by copyright, etc., then any photo you take of it can be freely licensed. If the painting is still considered to be under copyright protection, then it depends on what the focus of the photo happens to be. If the painting just happens to be in the background of some photo you take, then perhaps the principle of de minimis would apply with respect to the painting. If, however, the painting is the focus of the photo (which seems to be what you're intending to do), then the photo itself can be freely licensed by you as "own work", but the copyrighted image itself would likely be treated as non-free content. Since it seems that Hovenkamp is still living, such non-free usage is unlikely to be allowed per WP:NFCC#1. As awkward as is might be, you may be left with nothing better than simply asking him to allow his picture to be taken. You can also ask Herbert Hovenkamp to donate one of his photos to Wikipedia per WP:DONATEIMAGE or he can simply upload any photo he has of himself that he holds the copyright on to Wikimedia Commons directly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Can these images be uploaded to commons?
It says some rights reserved (I'm not sure what that means) but I think they're ok for commons since wikipedia isn't for profit but I want to be on the safe side.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tabercil/6367054757/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sherlock77/124664312/
Thanks.*Treker (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- The first one can, but the second one can not. See c:Commons:Flickr files. Wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons) isn't for profit but our re-users are and we want to allow reuse by anyone for all purposes, hence the requirement for free licensing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Copyright tagging is required
File:1922_Northern_Steamship,_Auckland.jpg has a tag saying Copyright tagging is required, but doesn't explain how to do it. How is it done and what tag is appropriate for a pre 1923 image?Johnragla (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Johnragla: you can add {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} to that page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{PD-US-1923}} if it really was published in the United States before 1923, as you say (the sources you give seems to be a newspaper published in New Zealand instead). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
dcw2003: Dcw2003 (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- This image is both PD in the US having been published prior to 1923 and is also PD in New Zealand under s24 of the NZ Copyright Act 1994. Now tagged as such but it could do with a description adding. Nthep (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Could someone please provide me with the tag for non-free fair use for photo uploaded to Wiki.
I have been unable to locate it!! The photo appears to be from a press kit, is signed by the subject, and was taken around 1918. The name of the press agency appears on the photo. The subject died in 1977. Please advise on which tag to use, for non-free fair use. No details exist of the nature of the copyright or the author.
The photo is of a boxer, Abe Goldstein, and appears in boxrec. The file is GoldsteinAbe.jpg. Please help. The file is up for discussion.
Thank-you,
David Wasserman