Wikipedia talk:Requesting copyright permission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Absurdly complex to figure out what to do 2 Typo? Or maybe I just don't understand... 3 WikiProject Free Images 4 When permission is confirmed 5 Guardian article 6 Forwarding permission to the Wikimedia Communications committee: required? 7 Image licenses? 8 Add link to a "How To" guide or 5 steps to obtaining a free image? 9 When will I receive a reply? 10 When to forward to the commons beforehand? 11 What about other kinds of permission? 12 Permission to use a company's trademark/logo on the company's page 13 Stupidly Complicated 14 Shortcut for Wikipedia:COPYREQ#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries 15 Trademarks etc 16 How do I get permission from myself

[edit] Absurdly complex to figure out what to do

Sorry guys but I struggled for an hour or more trying to figure out what is involved in getting permission. Reading various articles and policies.

The guy who took the photo is just down the hall from me and did it casually, so a. there is no URL - the photo is not ON a website prior to uploading to WP. b. he is not a member of WP and would probably not bother to be. c. he has no particular interest in reading licenses

He said it is OK to use it on WP, so I used this option on the upload page. Is it intended to trick people? If the policy is not acceptable, then don't offer it as an option! "HAHA YOU USED THE WRONG LICENSE - DELETED!".

There should be a ONE PARAGRAPH summary of THE WHOLE PROCESS including what to tell the person. I know WP is "serious about copyright" but the current procedure is too complex and confusing to understand, and goes massively against the spirit of open contribution. It feels like a stultifying beuracracy, which is going to heavily discourage participation.

My only reaction is to delete the image and give up.

Never knew "beuracracy" for aggravating circumstances (buttercracy witha whiff of french cuisine?), but there sure is a bit-bot of that, if you don't mind it be said: too complex, confusing, against the spirit of open contribution, stultifying bureaucracy, heavily discourages participation, only reaction is to delete and give up, "Ha-ha you used the wrong spirit too bad for us all." Been looking into it for a week on-and-off now (at about 1hr minimum per session), just to pass a pic i had put myself into french wiki Terra preta article at beginning of year, from there to the english article. I know for a fact that the owner is only too happy to promote the topic at hand with his photos - or it sure would have been deleted by now, since he could plainly see the pic when he visited the page to give his opinion on the then ongoing work on article. And now I can't even find the page where I left a message to ask for help (why isn't it in my "modified pages" list?). Ptah. *** *** ***. Thanks anyway. Basicdesign (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typo? Or maybe I just don't understand...

Just before the table of contents the text reads: "...especially if it's explained that the license terms mean it is wider appreciated and that we do not want to use all their material...". What does "it is wider appreciated" mean? Omphaloscope » talk 00:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Free Images

Images can be divided between free and non-free ones. Recently, there has been a push to eliminate the non-free ones that, apparently, can be recreated. However, until now I have seen many places with suggestions about how to request free images, but not a project to coordinate efforts. Because of this I am giving the first push to WikiProject Free Images, aimed at centralizing discussion about free images. Currently, it is situated at my userspace, User:ReyBrujo/WikiProject Free Images, but with enough positive feedback and help, it will be moved into the Wikipedia namespace.

The WikiProject aim is broad: first and foremost, educate users about the benefits of free images, but also to teach the differences between free licenses when applied to images. Aside this, the WikiProject will focus in replacing the current fair use images with free ones of good quality, by contacting the media, agencies, publishers or other copyright holders as necessary. It would keep a list of requested images to different organizations, with the different steps that had been taken and the different replies. It will also have an index of all the images that had been donated by these organizations, so that they are able to review their contributions. Also, the members of the WikiProject would review the usage of these images in Wikipedia, verifying that attributions are applied at all times when requested by the copyright holder.

This WikiProject was given as a thought during the Wikipedia:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos discussion, and since apparently there has not been a similar one, I decided to try it out. With some luck and effort, it should be possible to replace many of the current fair use images with free ones of similar quality.

Please drop by and give some thoughts in there. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When permission is confirmed

Where's the discussion on this? I uploaded an image a year ago. Its copyright owner released it under the GFDL when I asked (through email), perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy at the time. I didn't keep the email, and now, more than a year later, it's going to be deleted because I have to forward private communications to a bunch of strangers? This is absurd. Tuf-Kat 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. Where does it say that old images were to be deleted? We all know that for a long time, Wikipedia just relied on an uploader's say-so regarding permissions. We also know that spurious permission claims are sometimes made. The procedure here with forwarding the permission to the Wikimedia Foundation is to have (a) some sanity check to weed out insufficient permissions, and more importantly (b) to give the WMF a means to archive such permissions. That enhances traceability, and makes it possible to re-verify an image even if the original requester of the permission has long left Wikipedia or didn't keep the original e-mails. The procedure has been in place for at least since September 2005. But again, this is not about deleting images, it's about traceability. Lupo 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the impression I got (regarding Image:KingSunnyAde.png) was that it was required for avoiding deletion. Maybe I misinterpreted User:Conscious on my talk page. I think it's reasonable to ask people to begin forwarding permission to the foundation, I was just upset that that it seemed that image was going to be deleted (because it's irreplaceable, unless I could re-get permission, which I suppose is probably possible). Tuf-Kat 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian article

Thought that A picture paints a thousand invoices would be of interest here. I didn't know that for a long time, Wikipedia just relied on an uploader's say-so regarding permissions, so have been pressing for the procedure to be followed on old images by someone with a pretty dodgy understanding of copyright. How tough should I be? ... dave souza, talk 21:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forwarding permission to the Wikimedia Communications committee: required?

I'd really like to get clarification on whether or not forwarding permission to the Wikimedia Communications committee is required or just preferable. If a user claims to have received verbal or written permission, is that sufficient or do we now require that proof of permission be put on file here at Wikipedia? Any applicable quotes from Jimbo or other authorities would be appreciated but just some input from anyone who's familiar with our copyright policies would help a lot. I am trying to determine what should be done when a user uploads a file, claims to have permission, and refuses to forward proof of permission. TomTheHand 16:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Six months later, question unanswered so I will try again (thanks for the clues, TomTheHand). Who is the Wikipedia Communications committee and what "proof of permission" do they want? And why now? Thanks for any more clues. -Susanlesch 03:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Great, a clue! Wikimedia_Foundation#Communications_committee. But the image I am being asked about is not copyrighted. So I expect no one will answer my question here either. Wonder where to try next. -Susanlesch 03:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That section of the article is gone. I also don't know how to go about getting answers. :( Aaron Lawrence 09:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Aaron Lawrence, I don't remember why that link is broken. A couple days after sifting through a bunch more places I found an email address in the obvious place and wrote to whoever answers that mail. No reply yet but maybe they have a backlog. -Susanlesch 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I deal with the permissions folks almost daily. I normally get a fast response from the Commons permissions folks, not so much with the English Wikipedia (so much so that I do all my uploads on Commons now). You'll also get a faster response if you have an explicit license statement as opposed to some vague permission. See User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content for some form letters and such that I use to get specific license permissions. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Found the Communications Committee ("wikipedia" probably eliminated it from my search results). -Susanlesch 06:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image licenses?

From Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for images
Any free license must allow all of the following, for both the image itself as well as any modified versions based on it:

1. Modification
   
2. Redistribution
   
3. Use for any purpose, including commercial purposes.
   
   

The only restrictions allowable are proper attribution of the creator and the requirement that derivative works are similarly licensed.

Is it just me, or are the bolded phrases in conflict with each other? If you can require that derivate works are similarly licensed, then all derivates would share the same (free) license. Wouldn't a commerical purpose require a commercially-friendly license, or am I just overthinking that? It just sounds unintuitive, but that's probably because I need sleep. ^^;; --Godfoster 08:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add link to a "How To" guide or 5 steps to obtaining a free image?

Hi all, I wrote a "how to" of sorts, based on my experience in trying to navigate the permissions requirements of obtaining a photo for uploading. The link to the guide is *here*. I know there are other ways to go about it (or other licenses to use) and people may have differing opinions on the best way to go about it, but this provides specific steps and wording that is easier to follow. I think it could be useful for a lot of editors, especially those not familiar with licensing requirements. Any thoughts? R. Baley 04:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When will I receive a reply?

Hi. An IP address disputed an image. I sent you mail on 30 August for it and three other images. When are you going to reply? -Susanlesch 13:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OTRS is all handled by volunteers, and there is a large backlog. It might take a while but you will get a response. Garion96 (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Here are the mails for which I hope to receive a reply. Sorry to bother you all. I did not realize this process takes two or three weeks to get a reply and someone else told me that perhaps I should assume these did not get to you. No idea. -Susanlesch 01:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: Proof for a photo [confidential email to the Wikimedia Communications Committee]
 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:35:07 -0700
 From: name deleted <email address deleted>
 To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org

 -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: Proof for two photos [confidential email to the Wikimedia Communications Committee]
 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:48:12 -0700
 From: name deleted <email address deleted>
 To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org

 -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: Proof for a photo [confidential email to the Wikimedia Communications Committee]
 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:53:36 -0700
 From: name deleted <email address deleted>
 To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org

 -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: Proof for a photo [confidential email to the Wikimedia Communications Committee]
 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:26:18 -0700
 From: name deleted <email address deleted>
 To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org

May I ask how long is "a while"? -Susanlesch 01:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Dear To Whomever it may concern. On reflection, I am going to tag all five images db-author and remember that Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Communications Committee cannot handle their own guidelines. What a rook. -Susanlesch 02:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Basically because it wasn't going fast enough to suit you, you decided to delete the images? Oh brother. Garion96 (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, Garion96. Yes, that is correct. Thanks to your note, I sent a follow up email to cancel all four sets of proofs. Will my mail be deleted or is that kept on file in perpetuity? I did ask for a reply when the volunteers have a moment to answer. Thanks again for your help and best wishes. -Susanlesch 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: Cancelling Re: Proof for a photo [confidential email to the Wikimedia Communications Committee]
 Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:40:16 -0500
 From: name deleted <email address deleted>
 To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org
 CC: name deleted <email address deleted>
 References: <deleted>

• Why are you here actually? To work on the encyclopedia I assume? And still because it is not fast enough to your liking you decide to delete? Regarding your mails, I am not sure but I think all mails are kept in the archives. Garion96 (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Hi, Garion96. Yes, I am a Wikipedia contributor. Nice to "meet" you. Regarding "not fast enough," I had no idea this could take two or three weeks or more (this discussion started for me about on 28 August in a section above this one, maybe you didn't see that or my first questions weren't clear enough). If you take suggestions, maybe add a bit of information on expectations to the instructions, so that users who are lost like I was will know beforehand that they might need to wait quite a while? And how long quite a while would be? Or maybe you all could add an automated "ack" mail so people who are waiting in line will know that the Communications Committee received their email? -Susanlesch 21:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Automatic reply might be handy. Might be worth a mention on Meta:OTRS. I did read the discussion and the one above. Perhaps I am misunderstanding here. Am I correct in assuming, after reading the posts, that you uploaded images, you have permission of the copyright holder to upload those images under a free content license. You send that permission to OTRS. You think that takes too long. You decide to delete the images? Garion96 (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, that is what happened to me. Just ran plumb out of energy. Sorry I don't have a meta account. Thank you again for taking an interest. -Susanlesch 21:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• You don't need energy. After sending the mail OTRS will...would now...handle it. Incomprehensible. Garion96 (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Garion96, thank you for your reply. I hope that some suggestion proves to be useful. If you or anyone needs to reach me about this please use my talk page. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 22:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Susan, I recommend uploading at Commons. The responses I get from there are always fast. (I just got acknowledgement on one about 10 minutes after I sent the e-mail to OTRS.) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Um, this is Wikipedia. -Susanlesch 02:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but images uploaded at Commons may be used at any Wikimedia project, including Wikipedia. I upload all my images there. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me, this is Wikipedia where free and non-free images are permitted. This is not Wikimedia Commons. -Susanlesch 03:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I know, but free content belongs on the Commons anyway - see Wikimedia Commons#Policies and usage. It's still used in exactly the same way as content on the English Wikipedia. I guess this depends on the license of your photos - what license did the copyright holder give for the photos? (If the license was insufficiently clear, or was not proper for Wikimedia, that might also explain the lack of a response from OTRS - they sometimes don't answer if the license is invalid.) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Videmus Omnia, I will not be replying to you again on this topic. To quote an ancient New Zealand folk song, because you are asking that tells me this is not your affair. Thank you if you would please stop asking me questions. -Susanlesch 04:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I was honestly trying to help, but OK, be that way. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Hi Susan, I am an OTRS volunteer who handles a lot of requests for permissions. We do have large backlogs in this area, however, since we have fewer people working on it. I searched the system and only found the last e-mail you mention - the one with the subject Cancelling Re: Proof for a photo [confidential email to the Wikimedia Communications Committee]. So either the other messages were never sent to us, or did not arrive correctly. Either way, the e-mail is largely useless as you have not given us the license you wish to release your images under. If you can give a clear statement telling us that you are the copyright holder of the image, and what license you release it under - the GFDL, or certain Creative Commons licenses, are considered free - I will gladly undelete the images for you, close the ticket, and send you a response that the permission has been cleared. Best, ~ Riana ⁂ 03:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Riana, thank you for your reply. I hope that some suggestion above proves to be useful. No, thank you, though, I am not able to work on this any more. If you or anyone needs to reach me about this please use my talk page (thank you for doing that). -Susanlesch 05:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When to forward to the commons beforehand?

I gotten a few images released by their copyright holders for use on various wiki articles. Should I sent the permission acceptance to the commons at all or first? All I been doing so far is just sending to the normal permissio at wiki one. --Kolrobie 07:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about other kinds of permission?

I'm concerned about photos of minors. Even the person who took a photo does not necessarily have the right to release it to public domain in situations where they ought to have permission from people in the photographs. Where can I look to find Wikipedia's guidelines regarding photos of underage individuals who are not public figures? Wryspy (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there aren't issues with child nudity. The problem arises with pornography where the models appear to be young. Check this (even though it is an essay):

A photo used to illustrate Creampie (sexual act) was deleted by Jimbo with the summary, "Image would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements." This refers to the enforcement guidelines for the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, which require the "publisher" of sexually explicit material, Wikipedia in this case, to obtain and maintain records proving that the model is of legal age.

Wikipedia is in no situation of keeping such records, and therefore these images are usually deleted. Note that Wikipedia is not a free storage service, so unless the image has a chance to be used in an article, it may be deleted.

I am speaking what "I think", but I cannot assure you what I said is the real truth. I am not sure Wikipedia has guidelines for underage pictures. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Permission to use a company's trademark/logo on the company's page

Is the process the same as for any copyrighted image? Try as I might I've not been able to find a logo-specific guideline. Harrison789 (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stupidly Complicated

Why do you make things so bloody complicated? Why doesn't Wikimedia move its servers outside the USA to a country with more sensible copyright laws? I would never agree to your crazy example permission requests. Why can't you just have a simple policy that would allow an image to be used ONLY on Wikimedia projects rather than all the other shite wording in the letter which seems to imply that people could then use the image on other websites, alter the image and distribute it via non-free means. Wikimedia needs to sort itself out. If you can't find an image then just use any from the Internet and to hell with copyright law. Let them sue Wikimedia and wait for the reaction from its users, worldwide media and other Internet users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.129.24 (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut for Wikipedia:COPYREQ#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries

Could someone please create a shortcut to

• Wikipedia:COPYREQ#Declaration of consent for all enquiries

such that the (otherwise unwieldy) url can be sent as a link in email? WP:COPYCONS would do I think. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, but I made it WP:CONSENT. And you know, you could have done this yourself. :) howcheng {chat} 04:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trademarks etc

Just curious, why is "I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc." commented out? I was just coming to add something similar and found this in HTML comments. howcheng {chat} 04:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If the language is too strict, perhaps something like "I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws"? howcheng {chat} 04:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How do I get permission from myself

I'm currently trying to add an article about myself and, of course, used me biography from my website. I've been told that this is a copyright infringement and my article was deleted. Ok, so how to I get permission form myself and how to I tell Wikipedia this?

Mak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastscapian (talk • contribs) 07:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you shouldn't try to create articles about yourself (see WP:AUTO), but if you insist, then you need to send an email to permissions-enwikimedia.org and state that you agree to release the contents of your web page under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This should be done from an email address that has the same domain as your web site. If you don't have one, then it can be whatever email address is on your domain's WHOIS record. If that's still not possible, there needs to be some way on your web site to contact you so that we can verify that you are who you say you are. howcheng {chat} 21:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)