Note. This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To ask questions, or to make further comments, please go to Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk.
I took a screenshot of Bon Jovi performing Runaway Image:Runaway.jpg. The screenshot shouldn't be a problem - it doesn't affect Bon Jovi's sales or anything because they're not selling screenshots. Yet the picture is still under a "disputed fair use rationale" thing. Any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dealer Camel (talk • contribs) 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to write a fair use rationale for the image - be sure to include the article(s) it's being used on. See WP:FURG for help on how to write one. east.718at 12:56, February 3, 2008
Just wondering, why is it that the fair use rationales always seem to be in the Summary section of the image description page, with the license tag afterwards in the Licensing section? Is this de jure policy, or just something that's done de facto? Wouldn't it make more sense to explain the fair use rationale after the license of the media has been stated? • Anakin(contribs • complaints)23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a considerable amount of time on these logos and I was wondering if anyone had any ideas about how to make these free images or if they are permissable at the present (I doubt they are, but I'm not sure). If no one can come up with anything, I will voluntarily nominate them for deletion via db-author. Any and all input is greatly appreciated. Thingg⊕⊗03:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the image that was the inspiration for these? Generally, a simple geometric shape isn't copyrightble, so if your green X was simple and different from the X-box X, it might pass muster. MBisanztalk05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I made these images from scratch by using the logos and a picture of the Sun from space. Question: if I did a generic "X", would having the 3D effect fail it? Thingg⊕⊗19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to keep the logo the way it is, that is if there's nothing wrong with it. Is there any problems with the logo? Thanks DJS --DJS24 (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question, would there be any way these would qualify as free images because they are quite different than the copy-righted version of the logo? Just wondered, because I really do like them a lot as they are now. Thingg⊕⊗05:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The basic rule of thumb is that its infringement (at least to me) is a reasonable person would possibly confuse the two or that the second was derived from looking at the first. A generic green X wouldn't, since there are so many green Xs, but once you give it MS style, 3-D, starburst, etc, its now based on the copyrighted image. MBisanztalk05:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't confuse them, but I notice now that they are on wikimedia's commons site. You'd probably be best off checking there for approval to put stuff on their site. MBisanztalk19:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the legal status of publicly displayed historical texts? I infer the implication that the sign was willfully designed for public education, and that a copyright would be contradictory and practically ludicrous in nature. But at the same time, I do know that some works of U.S. state governments hold copyrights. Just to be safe, I'd like to know the true legal status of both the text itself, and what type of copyright status applies to pictures that contain it. — C M B J05:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's too long a question for us to answer here, other than to say that violating it with the wrong person tends to land you with a lawsuit. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for taking the x to read this. I cannot find my wikipidea account when I type my name on google, Cheryl Bogart... and also, there is a problem it says potentially with my image. I own that picture so I don't know what to do re: keeping it. The picture belongs to me as it is me.
Your attention to both these matters will make me feel much better, as I use wikipidea for business..
It looks like you're talking about Image:CherylBogart7.jpg, is that right? Now, that image only belongs to you if you took it (which is unlikely) or you have an agreement with the person who took it to transfer the copyright to you. Please clarify whether this is correct. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not upload this image (Image:WhiteStarLogo.jpg) and have no other information than is currently shown, but there seems to be a problem with its source and licensing. It shows as bring being in the public domain and as copwritten. I bring it to the attention of editors and admins to patrol this page. Thanks, Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the sort of error that exists from when all the logo cates were renamed to non-free logo cats. My suggestion would be to elimiante the logo cats, since its obviously in the public domain. I might run a cross-cat on these two cats later to see just how large the problem is. MBisanztalk18:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
does my article edit solve the problem with invalid rationale?
Not sure where else to post this (yes, I'm an admin, but not coming to WP as often as I used to). There are a zillion dog photos identified by this series of deleted pages
referenced by this deletion debate, which I missed entirely. The fallacy of the argument ("this is now handled by commons") is that the majority of the photos listed here are not on commons and it's a tremendous amount of work to do that. The big problem is that, if the photos aren't listed somewhere, somehow, it's impossible to find them all.
I'm intending to undelete these pages long enough to be able to flag all of the images listed there to make them easy to find again. But my question is--what's an appropriate way to flag the images by current WP policy? Is it OK for me to just add, say, Category:Dog photos to all the images? They won't be sorted in any reasonable way (which the lists of images were--by breed, which, incidentally, all took literally hundreds of hours of work on my part) but it would be better than nothing, which is what we've got now. Elf | Talk02:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think images are categorized per se on Wikipedia. I suggest undeleting the pages, moving them to your userspace, deleting the redirect, then moving the images to Commons at your own speed (or possibly enlisting a couple of people to help), and categorizing them there. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I am Frederic RESSEGUIER
I'm fench,
My english so bad !! but I have a problem with my images...
Where and what kind of copyrights must I use ???
All the images are myself made.
I put this text "User-created GFDL images" under them but I don't know
if it's the good choice or if I'ts at the good place !
Thank you for response.
Fredox
See this page : [[3]]
You can write me at fred@systemtv.fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredox (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You put the {{GFDL-self}} on your userpage instead of on the image page. I've moved it for you. If you would like help in French you can email info-fr@wikimedia.org.
Vous avez mis {{GFDL-self}} sur votre page d'utilisateur au lieu de sur la page de l'image. Je l'ai mis à la bonne page. Si vous cherchez aide en Français vous pouvez envoyer un email à info-fr@wikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded this image Image:Pony in brecon.jpg, and uploaded it as my own work, which it is but there is tag underneath saying it is going to be deleted. Can you help please? Samasnookerfan (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is because you did not specify a license when uploading. For free content such as this, you can use one such as {{GFDL}} or {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. I would also strongly suggest uploading any of your free content to the Commons, because it also makes the image available to Wikipedia, as well as all of its sister projects. — C M B J03:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just asking this because I want to post something in the Wheel of Fortune (Philippine game show) article a few screenshots from a video in Youtube. I know I will mark the video itself with a fair use rational, and the specific copyright, but... is uploading a screenshot from a Youtube video allowed. Sorry if this is not the correct place to ask this. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs15:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image in the infobox at People's Party (Spain) was removed long ago based on image copyright issues. It has been recently replaced by a low-res version (Image:Logo PP.JPG), which as specified on the image page qualifies as fair use. My question is: would I be able to create a SVG or good-res PNG version of the logo by myself and then contribute it to Wikipedia? Or are we restricted to the crappy-looking version? Habbit (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A logo may be used under a fair-use rationale. The only criteria is that it be low resolution (less than 550 px on its longest axis) and that it properly sourced (to you) and rationaled. There is no requirement that it look bad, in fact for logos, we usually prefer either ones from the org or ones that are as close as possible, to avoid misrepresenting the brand. When you upload it, feel free to drop a line here or at my talk page to check the rationale template. MBisanztalk00:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Got the logo from the party website, shrunk it to 200px wide and uploaded it as Image:Logo PP (Spain).png, then substituted it in the article. I've put a fair use rationale with the "logo fur" template. By the way, if the use of this image gets approved, the old one (which is no longer linked to by any page) could be deleted. Habbit (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have written an article called Štark, about a company in Serbia that makes sweets. I uploaded logo of the photo, and now it has been flaggeg as invalid and marked for deletion. This whole licencing business is becoming soooooooo confusing, so I just need a simple answer:
Can I use pic of a logo in an article about a company to which the logo belongs?
what rationale I upload it under (fair use, logo use - which one)???
I just need to know so when I upload logos to match the articles, I want have to come again here and waste someone's times in answering me. As of now logo for ExxonMobile is being used the same way as logo for Stark, exept Stark is marked for deletion and ExxonMobile's logo is not?! I don't get it...
User:Avala Fixed it for you. You can use logos that are copyrighted, they just need a fairuse rationale, a statement stating the source, article used in, and reason its used. Thanks for the contribution. MBisanztalk00:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake when I put the license, I was confused on what was tha right one. The fact is "I scanned and crooped the image, so it's given on Public Domain by its creator, which is me. I think now I put the right type of license. Rockk3rTalk21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you did here, but generally cropping and scanning an image does not remove the original owner's copyright. --Haemo (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above image had a "disputed fair use" tag. I looked at it and it appears to me that the problem was that the uploader referred to the wrong article (Life On Mars, a link to a disambiguation page, instead of Life on Mars (TV series). I've fixed that and also added some words describing the fair use case in addition to a bit of boilerplate that was added by the uploader.
Done. The image was uploaded in Nov 2006 when the article was simply "Bill Kennedy". In February of 2007, someone created the disambiguation page and renamed the original article to "Bill Kennedy (actor)". Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?16:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been very careful about the copyright issue when uploading this file back in May, 2006. I had given all the justifications I could provide for using the Non-free audio sample template, when uploading this file. The file is used in the article about the artist, namely: Remo Fernandes. The fair use criteria for the file is related to only that article so I'm a bit confused about its invalidation citing WP:NFCC#10c. Plz help me re-assert the fair use rational. I sincerely believe it meets it! --hydkat12:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement on the talk page is confusing. To state you have the right to use it with attribution, which requires you to send a written legal document to OTRS. However, you also claim that it's fair use; which requires a fair use rationale that includes the article's name. Could you clarify this? --Haemo (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for images challenged on Vic McGlynn article
Betacommand bot put a challenge on the Vic McGlynn article. These are low resoultion captures from the in-studio webcam at BBC 6 Music. I then edited the photo and made a new one and uploaded it. The image in question is "Image:VicMc3.jpg" . It is fair use. Please advise. I think the betacommand bot is not working out well. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to not only assert that it is fair use, but also provide a fair use rationale on the image's page. Filling out the following template is the easiest way:
The Beta bot orphaned the photo I uploaded because it couldn't direct itself to the correct link. I forgot an exclamation point (!) at the end of the article link, so it thought the image I uploaded was orphaned. Please don't delete this image:
One of the images has been tagged as orphaned, and no doubt the second one will too, because they are not used in a Wikipedia article. Is there some way to allow these images to persist until I can finish the article, and post it on Wikipedia, sometime in the next 30 days?
These two images are preliminary, and I plan to upload better quality images soon.
How can someone write a long article with images for Wikipedia without posting a grossly incomplete article that will be revised by other editors before the original author can even finish it?
Technically, you're not supposed to have non-free images in userspace, even for a draft article. If you're planning on replacing them anyways, then why not use a placeholder image like Image:Example.jpg instead? --Haemo (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommandbot is misusing the [Wikipedia:NFCC#10c] Section 10c rationale in posting numerous tags on the images. The bot controller is more desirous to create a huge bureaucratic problem (where no problem exists) by adding inappropriate warning tags and then deleting images instead of actually fixing problems, which would be the right thing to do, and easy enough for the bot writer/controller to do.
Specifically, the bot quotes Section 10c on images that are album covers that are already labelled with a Wikipedia that quite clearly states (in bold letters) "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question"; images which equally clearly are quite clear only used to in one article to illustrate the audio recording in question.
The bots activity are in violation of the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia. It should be stopped and removed and the owner prohibited from running amok like this. Hu (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also says that "please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use"; and fair use rationales need to be specific for each article they are used in. In addition, the text refer "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question" leaves open the question where you are illustrating it — it could be on an article about the CD, about the specific track, or about the band in different contexts. A fair use rationale is required for each of these uses. --Haemo (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And to be honest, it's catching hundreds of images that don't really meet the fair use criteria in the first place, like magazine covers used to illustrate the person on the cover and fair use photos of living people. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How to Classify Copyright so that it's not deleted?
I am new to all this and sort of need guidance as to how to classify copyrighted images.
I uploaded an image for Inubaka, this image is from a photograph I personally took of the manga book I own so that the wikipedia page could have a picture for visual association.
I can't claim that the author gives permission, so how would I go about fixing the copyright so that it's not deleted? (I was flagged by the bot) Obviously I'm not making money off my efforts, I'm just trying to support the product.
Thanks for you time, I hope I can come to understand this a little better so that I might upload more in the future to benefit viewers of wikipedia!
Bluehazelojos (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a fair use rationale template following BetacommandBot expressing concerns. What am I to do now? I've added the information requested and everything, can I remove the warning on the image, or is it someone else's responsibility to control that everything is good? Manxruler (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:French university icon.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Blah, blah, you know. However, I don't see any "fair use" license, and I don't believe I uploaded the image with one. The image is a composite of two PUBLIC DOMAIN images, and I've included all the source information and copyright tags for those. Why did I get a message? Alekjdstalk21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im uploading a bunch of iamges today or tonight but i dont no which license to use. I created them and want to maek them free to use as long as my name or username is mentioned if possible. Could anyone give me an idea or some alterntives. BonesBrigade02:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of up to you; there are a couple you can choose depending on your licensing preferences. For instance, any of the licenses here with an attribution option are free but require people to attribute the work to you. --Haemo (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am already tired of deletinng the unjustified warnings of speedy deletion of this silly bot. Logos do not need fair use rationale and this bot is just unable to realize it. Sop it now! --Sugaar (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just loaded my image by my name Pranshu Ghosh. I want to know that how will i get a license and copyright of my image. Please guide me asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.252.172.235 (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Modification of previous (thirty-seven's) image; JASC Paint Shop Pro, convert to Monochrome followed by contrast enhancement, to remove offending copper color from our dime which is silver colored. For original credits, please refer to previous image." Mdrejhon (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
So, I don't think I'm the correct person to send the warning to, since I merely downloaded the image, adjusted the saturation/contrast/brightness, and re-uploaded. Since I only retouched, what do I do now? Relay the message to user 'thirty-seven' or ignore the message, or am I responsible for removing the images even though I only retouched existing Wikipedia images? Mdrejhon (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having read a conversation on ANI (I think?), I decided to try to add some fair use rationales to images without them. However, I'm not too confident about doing them - could someone please check and make sure I'm not doing it wrong? Also, is it okay to remove the dispute tag once the rationale has been added? Image:1000000zaz.jpg, Image:1000 Kip(1996).jpg are my first two
Idiocy like the unending red tape of image uploads will eventually destroy Wikipedia. I was once a frequent contributor. I used to edit a lot of articles, add my knowledge, share my expertise, and publish my research into topics of interest to people. Now, automated bots decide that my reasoning behind declaring an image to be of fair use isn't good enough. Wikipedia's greatest strength is its human element-- that it's an exchange of ideas. But I'm not going to argue with a bot. So have at. I'm done. Delete my contributions at will.Iamvered (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you're upset, but unfortunately Wikipedia has a serious problem with people uploading the copyrighted images of under people and claiming fair use without a proper justification — indeed, many "fair use" claims made are invalid. The Foundation has developed a series of policies and guidelines for dealing with this issue which are very precise, and comprehensive, because the legal requirments behind a defense of fair use can be stiff.
Part of this is because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia; emphasis on free. Copyrighted material needs to meet the policies outlined by the Foundation for inclusion — and one of these conditions is the rationale. If you disagree with the automated tool's assessment of your image, then remove the tag. However, I notice that your image does, indeed fail our policy on non-free images and thus the bots notification was correct, and should help you remedy the problem with the image. I hope you reconsider your decision to leave, and decide that meeting the Foundation's requirements is not too onerous a task to continue your valuable contributions. --Haemo (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This the end you fools guys are driving many of us to. Having a bot do this "work" leads to frustation. In any event you are applying a far more rigorous standard than applies in the real world. Try to be more helpful and build an upload tool that guides people not confuses them. Albatross2147 (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a picture of a photo of a building that no longer exists. There is no date (I wouldn't be surprised if it was pre-1923, but can't be sure). The photo was at the Washington State History Museum. It didn't have any credit given or anything like that. Is there any rationale I can use for uploading this photo? Murderbike (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free media information and use rationaletrue– WARNING: <name of article> does not appear to exist!
Check capitalization. Enter only the exact title of a single article with no [[link brackets]] or other formatting. It is also possible the indicated article was deleted.
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of [[<name of article>]]//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_help_desk/Archive_2true
What kind of list? That's usually not accepted for "minimal use" standards. For instance, if I wanted to make a list of "Guest Stars on the Simpsons", I wouldn't be allowed to use non-free images for every guest star on the list. --Haemo (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My question concerns the Angel logo under the music catagory I wanted to use an example of the logo which I designed and sold to
the band angel in 1976 and was published by Casablanca Records in 1977 I uploaded a file (angel.png) but it said-
Image copyright problem with Image:Angel.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Angel.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted it to have the image to represent it how can I accomplish this.
Thanks, Robert W Petrick
You haven't told us what the copyright status is. Is it yours? You can release it under a free license, or claim fair use in a particular article. --Haemo (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright status is that they used my design 1976 until they disbanded in 1992 and The record company no longer exists
not sure of my rights to ownership. Basicly all I want is to be recognized as the author which is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert w petrick (talk • contribs) 16:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a page describing the process at WP:DCP. I believe you must certify that you allow Wikipedia to use the material, either by email to an official Wikipedia address, or by posting a message to that effect where you have originally posted the material (for example, on your own website). --Kateshortforbob18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not sure on this one. It's such a rare and specific sort of thing; perhaps you should just claim generic fair use, and make up your own template. --Haemo (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really, it's that different from common logo illustration? How about old advertisement, how is that expressed? Ok, if customising a generic fair use is the advised thing, I'll do that. MURGHdisc.23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my usual pattern is just to make my own when in doubt. Boilerplate is just supposed to make things easier, not constrain you in how you do things. --Haemo (talk)
That's what I would do. It's a little bit more work, but not that much and you can be a lot more specific with your rationale. --Haemo (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am really confused with the recent bots going around tagging government images as requiring fairuse rationale. Can someone please explain why a US government license tag does not need a Fairuse rationale, but every other country does?? This is not making sense.
It is not clear as to why a US government image automatically fits into the public domain without any fairuse needed. I can run down the list and go with other countries and point out similar examples. The bots should be skipping these government licenses. Can I get some opinions here? There is no misuse of the images and the {{HKCrowncopyright}} license already fits all the criteria. Benjwong (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the country. The United States, and some other countries, automatically release their works into the public domain if they are produced by state agencies in their everyday business. However, other countries (like Hong Kong and many Canadian provinces, for instance) do not release their work into the public domain — works of the Hong Kong government are under copyright, which is held (usually) by the government is question. This means they're not free, and thus require a fair use rationale — since the use of copyrighted material in this context is legal under a claim of fair use. The bots do not skip over these government images since from a legal standpoint, and the position of the Foundation, they are both non-free forms of media and are equivalent in terms of copyright to something owned by an artist or company. Hope this clears up the confusion! --Haemo (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much of this is a "bot" issue, and how much is an "image" issue, so I'm posting this question in both places.
If I understand the policies, guidelines, etc. correctly, the appearance of the company's logo on the WP page about the company, the album cover on the WP page about the album, and the school's logo on the WP page about the school are all "correct" usages.
However, I frequently see BetacommandBot "Fair use rationale" messages complaining about the inadequacy of the rationale.
Two questions:
Given that these are "correct" usages, why does it matter if the rationale is imperfect?
Given that these are "correct" usages, why is a generic rationale not acceptable?
The use of images as you describe are acceptable uses, but a correct rationale - in the sense that a machine can understand what the rationale is applying to - still must be provided per the Foundation requirements, it's just that very unlikely the non-machine readible sections of the rationale be challenged. --MASEM16:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that, in general, it doesn't matter; the bot messages are complaining about the machine-readable bits of the rationale that are not conforming to its requirements/expectations. Is that correct? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the bot can understand some parts of the rationale and make sure it's compliant, but other parts (the validity of the claims of fair use, no free counterpart, etc.) will have to be judged by a human. --MASEM18:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it allowable to use an image when there is a resonable belief that is in the public domain? The image in question is [7], which is an advertisement from a magazine from 1926. The company being advertised has not existed since 1936. According to our article on the subject, a work from that era would have passed into the public domain before 1978 if the copyright had not been renewed. It seems resonable to believe that this copyright was not renewed considering that the company had long since ceased to exist. I can imagine some counter-arguments to this logic.
My question concerns the Angel logo under the music catagory I wanted to use an example of the logo which I designed and sold to the band angel in 1976 and was published by Casablanca Records in 1977 I uploaded a file (angel.png) but it said-
Image copyright problem with Image:Angel.png Thank you for uploading Image:Angel.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted it to have the image to represent it how can I accomplish this. Thanks, Robert W Petrick
You haven't told us what the copyright status is. Is it yours? You can release it under a free license, or claim fair use in a particular article. --Haemo (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The copyright status is that they used my design 1976 until they disbanded in 1992 and The record company no longer exists not sure of my rights to ownership. Basicly all I want is to be recognized as the author which is the case.
[edit]
== Penalty for uploading an image that is deleted ==uob
I have been contributing to Wikipedia for the last four-five months. I have problem with image seleciton. I just would like to say that Wiki should not penalize a contributor like me for inadequate understanding of Wiki principles that is leading to uploading followed by deletion. Thank you. Faizul Latif Chowdhury —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizul Latif Chowdhury (talk • contribs) 09:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until we have a method to just stop uploads without blocking a user, the only method we have is to block users. My suggestion is just not to upload anything until you feel you are ready to understand our policies. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)09:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Ob[reply]
Thank you. But that is very discouraging. You can not ask me to be an expert on Wiki. You can ofcourse suggest "Stay aloof", then Wiki loses me. Also, I find a semantic problem. Wiki's concept of 'public domain', as just now explained to me is wrongful or is not fool-proofs. Anyway, thank you once for your kinduresponse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizul Latif Chowdhury (talk • hu
contribs) 10:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Ciompi.sellone is consistently uploading images that are copyrighted or pronographic...or both to articles relating to gay porno actors. I'm not sure where to report this, but if an admin could help me I'd appreciate it. I'm having to go back and forth with the user removing the images. He has removed the previous warnings from his talk page several times, but so far today has uploaded several more images that violate WP policy. Examples: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] & [14]. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are all of the images worksafe? I'd love to help you, but I can't really look at that stuff if it's not safe for work. You might find a faster response at WP:AN --Haemo (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone see any problem in having a transcluded BCB FAQ at the top of the page but after the header (possibly as a collapsable section) to address: BCB's usual warnings, limitations on what BCB can do, what has typically happened when BCB mistags something, and other similar issues that have been repeated ad naseum through Beta's talk, this page, and other similar pages? (the FAQ is not made yet). Searching is nice, but if it clearly states in the header "If you have a question about a BetaCommandBot warning message left on a talk page, check here first", I think we can alleviate a lot of problems for both users and Beta himself. --MASEM16:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, here's the FAQ that I've compiled knowing how BCB works and the questions he gets that I am suggesting we include. Please edit if you feel there needs to be more added, but I want to try to keep the tone "friendly/conversational" with it. I'm going to also ask at a few other places for input include at BC's page. --MASEM17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone considered that the message BetaCommandBot leaves on the image page needs to be more coherent? Take a fresh look at it -- it's a badly-punctuated mishmash of a warning, a quote from the policy, and Wikipedia jargon and template syntax. Heck, it makes it sound like the problem is that "the rationale is presented in clear, plain language". It's no wonder there are questions. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know why all of rhe images that I had submitted in the Article Jim Bailey Singer/Actor/Illusionist have been deleted. I provided what I beleive to be all neccessary discription and copyright data required. I am the agent for Jim Bailey and the Jim Bailey Archives wherew these photos are retained and owened. If you people want specific information on such data, I suggest that you make the Wikipedia Contribution experience more user friendly. Respectfully, William Kieffert, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamkieffert (talk • contribs) 21:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping to fix some fair use rationales before the images get deleted, but often I find the directions essentially impossible to comply with. On book covers such as Image:1859183786.jpg (to pick a random example), the warning message asks for information such as the source of the image, edition, and cover artist. I don't know these. I don't know a thing about the image except that it's a book cover being claimed as fair use for the article on that book.
(Side note: Upon looking, I find that it's not used for the article on that book. I picked a bad example -- that one really is a fair use violation. But basically all book covers uploaded before 2006 will have the same problem. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I haven't heard these other things (source, etc.) brought up with all the furor about enforcement of rule 10c. Is there a way to follow these guidelines without being the original uploader? Are we just paying attention to 10c right now and saving sources for later? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you can fix it. I usually fix them when I can; i.e. the article isn't included etc. However, sometimes you can't and then it's pretty well too bad unless the original uploader is around. --Haemo (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of times where we try to think like the uploader, but only he or she truly knows why they decided to upload the image on here. Don't worry if you cannot save it; there are plenty of other admins that can undelete once a rationale is found. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the uploader hasn't been here since 2005, how would a source be found? Does it work if someone finds an equivalent image (say, the same book cover on amazon.com) and considers that to be the source? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see what the problem is - I upload a photo of an original painting I own by Anthony M Ludovici (1882-1971). It is a picture of him with my grandfather, painted in 1900 ... and Wikipedia comes back at me saying there is a problem with copyright. It's my painting and my photo of it...
I dont understand - what can I do?
It's a good painting, too, and appropriate - it shows him and is an example of his art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P0mbal (talk • contribs) 13:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need advice about whether I understand Wikipedia's copyright policies correctly in relation to two images that I would like to use in two of my Wikipedia articles.
The first is a painting of a WWII subject. I cannot find out who the painter is, nor what the title is. You can find the painting here.
As you can see, the painting was photographed by a blogger.
Am I correct in thinking that:
I can use the image because it is a British Crown image of which copyright has expired (after 50 years), given that it must have been painted before the end of WW II (i.e. 1949)?
I can use the image (taken in 2007) if I can get permission from the blogger who took the picture?
My second question has to do with an album cover which I would like to use for an article on a well-known song:
the image on the cover likely date to the 1950s, but the album cover is from 2006.
May I use this image under Wikipedia's Fair Use non-free policies? You can find the album cover here.
Thanks for helping out. The caption to the image of the painting states: "Official War Painting of Commander William AE King RN".DocDee (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have come across many images (mostly album covers) that appear to have an inappropriate license attached to them (i.e. a free license). Some make no claim to be the copyright holder, so I just fix them. However, this set of images (Image:Stilllifesuicidebridge.jpg, Image:Stilllifelips.jpg, and Image:Stilllifecarolineplace.jpg) all have the phrase "I am the copyright holder and have released this image into the public domain" on them. I would think we do not just take on faith that the editor is in fact the copyright holder (but perhaps I am wrong). What is the proper action to take in these circumstances (should I just tag them with {{Wrong-license}} and move on? Should I change the license?) Thanks for your help. - AWeenieMan (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usually I'd say they should email OTRS, but that guy hasn't edited since 2006. I don't see an issue of tagging them as fairuse, but I'm not certain. MBisanztalk04:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the rationale. If an image tag was added by a bot, please feel free to remove it yourself once you address the stated concern. ˉˉanetode╦╩20:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to put this picture of the old KEFW. Very little is known about the image, i.e. there is no information of the copyright holder. All I know about the image is that was taken in the 19th century, so there is a high probability that the photographer died more than 100 years ago, but I can't say that for certain. Should the school own the copyright, then they have no objection to the image being shown on the page. So, can it be used, or not? Alex Holowczak (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, I have no idea whether it was before 1888. Note that the school is located outside of the United States. If I was to upload the image, what would I have to select on the copyright screen? Because it doesn't fit into any of the categories (that I can tell). It's been found on a website, but there is no "120 year rule" option. Should I go for the 100 year death of the author? Note also, this building no longer exists, so it isn't "fair use of an existing building," either. Alex Holowczak (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to transfer this image from Hebrew wikipedia onto the English Shlomo Yosef Zevin. It's all verified in the Hebrew that the image doesn't infringe copyright, but what is the protocol for telling the English site that it's already verified on the Hebrew one? Thanks. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upload the image here citing the Hebrew wikipedia as the source. Be sure to credit the original uploader there and, of course, fill in all necessary information. Lara❤Love18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently confused as to why this image has been tagged for deletion, at the moment there are no other alternate images which would be wholly approprate for the page. Neither is there any text which could replace the image.
It complys with 'Minimal Usage' as it is only used once to provide, the image is of a low-ish quality as so it could not be used for commercial use.
Anyway, to put it short I am completly confused on the reasoning behind it, could somebody tell me why without loads of WIP linkage? Jamesbuc —Preceding comment was added at 14:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, to answer the question, all those reasons you listed as to why it meets fair use needed to be listed on the image page. It's corrected now. Lara❤Love15:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been tagged for licensing issues. Please go ahead and delete this.
I am tired of fighting the ever-constricting strangulation of rules for what is and isn't allowed. I am done jumping through flaming hoops only to find that someone has created a smaller hoop for me to jump through later.
Apparently, it is not possible to fix a missing copyright by re-uploading an image with a valid copyright selection. It appears that it is only possible to correct such mistakes by editing the image information page. If, like me, an image uploader is unaware of this Wikipedia quirk, this can be a source of great confusion and frustration. I recommend this be corrected to avoid unnecessarily long and opaque edit histories.
--GreyStork (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's so weird. I was unaware that this was even possible. I think we can classify this as a bug. I'm going to bring it for wider attention. --Haemo (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm currently rewriting the HMS Cardiff (D108) article on my sandbox here. I want to add an image of the ships badge to the article from the Navy News website here, I presume this is Crown Copyright, am I still allowed to use it? What tags etc would I need to add? FYI other pages have them e.g. No. 1 Squadron RAF
The template you're looking for is {{Non-free Crown copyright}}. I would agree that the first image is under Crown Copyright. For the second, the site is under Crown Copyright and used with permission from the Royal Naval Museum. The only given form of contact is by mail, found here. Lara❤Love15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read all this over and it appears to me that the 'screenshot' rationale given and the screenshot reasoning stated in the Wikipedia template make this allowable fair use. I'm not sure what else BetacommandBot is referring to, but I'm quite willing to listen if there is something I'm missing. --Kickstart70-T-C14:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure about 40% of the content of this site is legal cobblers and convoluted patronising instructions. You are winging that I haven't added copyright info about Image:agecroft_logo.jpg My questions are then why is it possible to add images without adding info if I Have to do it? Secondly how the hell am I supposed to do it after it's been uploaded. It's just the club logo from the rowing club's website that I run. Get a grip guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMLewis1976 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you're looking for. All the information is given in the upload process and there is a drop down menu to choose from when selecting a license. I believe it tells you in that process that if you don't select one from the menu you're supposed to add a tag after upload. That's done simply by editing the image page. If this is a copyrighted images, it will also need a fair use rationale. Lara❤Love21:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please write back and tell me how it is you can get hold of a picture from the internet's copywrite information. I have tried adding an image I found on Google Images to a perticular page and have received a message saying it needs to have copywrite info.Officially Mr X (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, an image grabbed of the internet cannot be used on Wikipedia, (unless it is released under a free license such as GFDL/GNU or Creative Commons.) The exception to this is if the picture is under fair use. If you feel this applies, make your case (follow the instructions at WP:FAIRUSE) and place your source information and rationale. Let me know if you have any questions. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help again! re "Creative Commons" and permission to use photos
Hi again, can I ask 2 more questions please. A little while ago, I asked permission to use this pic off a website, the guy said yes, but I don't know what tag to use, so I just copy n pasted our e-mail correspondence, what should I do?
On the second question, yes, we can use the images. CC-BY-SA is one of the few Good licenses from Creative Commons we accept. The easiest way to tell if we can use is or not is this; if the license has either NC (non-commercial) or ND (no derivatives/modifications), then it is no-go. As for the first one, the license isn't defined yet. To make sure it is clear, give him Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries to read and license and we will can move on and see if that is good enough for us or not. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I uploaded the 2nd question pic here, have I used the right license? P.S. LOL @ the "return fire" on ur sig, also just wanted to say thnaks for all your help guys. When I looked back over the other questions, people just use this place to screw at yous, and you lot are volunteers here to help them! So ya'know cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't use the right license, but I decided to play the nice guy. Generally, with licenses like that, you need to type it in by hand. So, you will see in the green column in what I wrote and use that for all of this guy's images. (As for the sig stuff, I used to have "Sound off," but people found it harsh.) User:Zscout370(Return Fire)02:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BetacommandBot keeps disputing the image, I thought I clarified the information, was wondering if anyone can have a look and explain to me what to do or sort it out for me. Regards Govvy (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the template to the image page and inculded the basic info thats was available in the description, please fill in the compltete details. Gnangarra13:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How i can put the image and this is my work not someone else and i have the right of copy right.
i am sorry because it difficult to understand about the wikipedia.
thanks
Nicky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelnight (talk • contribs) 14:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am writting a new page about a company on Wikipedia, and wanted to upload the logo onto the page. How do I do this appropriatly?
The company has given permission for its logo to be on the wikipedia page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksparling (talk • contribs) 21:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it depends. If their permission is for anyone to use it in any manner GFDL (commercial and non-commerical means), then email that permission to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". If they just want it on Wikipedia, then that isn't a permission we can accept. So it would need to be done as a Fairuse image. The page to upload it is WP:Upload. Feel free to drop a line here if you do that, so I can make sure the template is correct. MBisanztalk21:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A company will virtually never release its logo under a free license since doing so effectively amounts to giving up all trade mark rights. Just use {{non-free logo}} and provide a proper Fair Use rationale and it will be fine. -- Hux (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of screen/arcade cabinet - Beatmania (including screenshots
In article "beatmania" I wish to edit to include a photo of my personal "beatmania the final" cabinet, in regards to talking about cabinet design and marquees/logos. Would a photo under my own copyright depicting an object that may be under copyright (but not released under public domain)be permissable under fair use in this article?
Secondary, in a subsidary article not yet created discussing the components of each individual "mixes" of beatmania, a photo of each screen/marquee discussing the game design changes would be used, taken once again under personal copyright. Does this qualify under fair use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by My58vw (talk • contribs) 22:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already discussed this with Rettetast and he concluded that it was a fair use. I don't know what you find disputable about it and hope you can clarify this. --MOONGOER (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg most respectfully to state that I am Nur Mohammad (Previous name- Jibon Kumar Roy), Fathers name Late Jagananda Roy, Nationality- Bangladeshi. I went to Dubai , UAE in 2000 as a Fashion Designer by Resident Visa. In 2000 when I stayed in Dubai I decided to be a Muslim by inspiration of Tabligue-Jamat and I received Islam with the help of Almighty Allah by Sharjah shariah Court. I was starting my life with the rule of Islam and Holy Quran. After some days I back to my own country and get married with a Muslim women. I was happy with my family. I always pray to Almighty Allah. I followed Islamic Shariah and Sunnah. Everything was going smoothly.
But after some days my others familiar betrayed with me. They couldn't accept my receiving Islamic religion. They were neglecting me. All of my others family member were graft my property and money by using force. They were tried to kill me several time. But I am still in my decision. Now they were trying to destroy my own family. I have a son of 4 years. I have no work. I have no money to meet my basic needs. Now I am spending an extreme painful life with my wife and son. My life is going to a so much difficult day by day.
In this moment I cannot find a job in my own country. I had tried several times in many places to get a job. But I didn't get. Nobody help me. So I need a job into the UAE or other country. If you give me any kind of job in your country I will save my family.
So I therefore pray that you would be kind give me a job or, give me sumthing retunable money.
Your Kind Regards
Nur Mohammad
Village : Basantapur, P.S : Bajitpur
P.O; Bajitpur, Dist : Kishoreganj
Country: Bangladesh
Phone : [removed for privacy] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.148.58.2 (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question on the copyright of Image:Rezko obama08.1.jpg and whether it can be released into public domain. The picture of the house itself appears to be taken by a non-professional and a quick stroll through google doesn't produce any nits, so no problem there, but it also includes two copyright images overlaid on the photo of the house. Does the copyright on the two overlays prevent them being used in a "new creation" such as they are used here? --Bobblehead(rants)16:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just what is the reason that some images are retained while others that seem to have equal justification for inclusion are deleted? I am asking this question relative to images that I have personally uploaded. Backspace (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 March 8#Image:070924 katyn memorial jc.jpg... It's my understanding that taking a picture of a three-dimensional work does not create a new copyright so the copyright of the three-dimensional work would apply. In the case of the image I listed for deletion above, the statue was made in the 1980s (or around that time) to commemorate a massacre that happened in 1940, i.e. it is definitely not old enough to be public domain. I believe Wikimedia Commons deletes such images per Commons:Commons:Derivative works so I listed it for deletion there too. Are the rules different here? The photographer claims that "photos of public space are owned by the photographer" but does that mean copyright is attached? I may be way off on this one so please let me know. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this image is determined to be in violation of Wikipedia policy, I will happily remove it. However, I am curious why this image is a candidate for deletion under this policy, while the image of the Colgate Clock (Colgate_clock_front.jpg) appearing directly below it on the page has not been tagged this way. I am not asking this question because I feel singled out, put-upon, or even miffed by the discussion about my image, but because I think standards that are haphazardly applied are not standards at all. Shane Smith (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it varies from country to country. Shane, I have a similar image of a memorial from the US put up for deletion before due to the "freedom of panorama" stuff. This is the most confusing part of copyright that many of us just don't understand yet. It needs some time before it can be sorted out. As a matter of fact, I remember being told about the copyright of the Katyn Memorial in Belarus, I can probably dig the discussion out for you. Just remind me on my talk page please, Shane. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
my image is about to be deleted, what should I do?
Since you were working on an article in the sandbox, and using this image from it, I removed the notice. However, in the future, you need to list the rationale for each image use for each article by name. What you done is correct, just do it again if the image will be used elsewhere. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OIC, ok, thankyou very much. Will I need to change the rationale when I move the rewrite from the Sandbox to the mainspace then? Ryan4314 (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you were missing is a direct link to the name of the article. So on that page, you need a link to Cause of Death (album) somewhere on the rationale. Sorry, but the bot was right on this one, thought I do admit this is the hardest part of the NFCC to maintain overall. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image was tagged as in violation of WP:NFCC#10c which states that a fair use rationale be explained for each use of the item. Please take another look at this, I explained the use of the item. I don't know if it is satisfactory or what is required for a fair use rationale explaining its each use, hopefully a second look can be done and advice on what it should be? -Jahnx (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the name of the page that the image (the #10c warning) is used on alng with what else you provided makes it a good rationale, so I've removed the warning on the image. --MASEM08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention the context, it looks ok now. Though if I can offer a humble suggestion, please use JPEG instead of PNG in this kind of image, but keep the rationales. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)19:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
....Umm...how do I change the description of the image on my talk page? I'm using my Talk page as a sandbox experiment and I know the URL I got the stamp from...but, a little help here?? Jadell-Leigh20:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the graphics lab we have a question over copyrighted logos and emblems. For example, is it permitted to re-draw a poor quality logo as long as we don't change the design and upload it at suitably small size? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need to upload an imaage of my own work, but I am really confused how to do it without being deleted. I would appreciate it if you could help me by a step by step procedure. Thanks!AlborzTaha (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GREETINGS FOLKS
Just browsing tonight and on the talk sport page you have a nigel pearson as a presenter , you,im afraid have the WRONG ONE , the nigel pearson you need on there is from Sedgley in the West midlands and he is a sports reporter , ie speedway , football , not an ex assistant manager of Newcastle , you will find him on the sky sports web site as a prsenter of speedway
Well, if the person who created the image is still alive, then the copyright lasts until 50 years after his or her death. So the image may still be under copyright. The current tagging and rationale are sufficient for use on Wikipedia, though, so no need to worry. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 11:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are images made by an employee of New York State in the course of his/her official duties in the public domain, like images made by employees of the United States Federal Government? J.delanoygabsadds22:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not, but I do think that Wikipedia needs a new policy with respect to Press materials. When an organization (like a state Government) releases an image, Wikipedia should use it in the spirit in which it was intended. They're not releasing press images in order to prevent the press from using them. The same goes for promotional photos from just about any individual or organization. They're there to be used, and there is a tacit understanding (at least in the U.S.) that that includes fair use applications. Wikipedia should prefer freely licensed images, of course, but having a category of "fair use until we get better" and populating it with the images of important persons, events and so forth would really make sense for the furtherance of the central goal of collecting human knowledge. Then again, knowledge isn't exactly what Wikipedia's about these days. It's more about evangelizing a certain mode of gathering and distributing knowledge (I don't mean that negatively, just ... it's difficult to understand why an encyclopedia doesn't want to use a press-kit image of a state official if they don't have better...) -Harmil (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'm kind of on my way out... and am thinking of no longer signing in as Harmil, so take my input with the grain of salt that it's worth. -Harmil (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really the place for it, but the argument has been made many times before, and the response is that "keeping until we find another image" isn't good as it doesn't work. Not having any image motivates people to look for a free one, but having one, most won't even know that we "want a freer one." And while our use of press released images may be okay, re-users of our content it may not be okay. If you really want an image on Wikipedia, don't you want an image for that poor child in Africa that may be reading about your article on a DVD format? MECU≈talk13:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know how I am supposed to make the image reach approval. I got the picture from a Toonzone topic, and the picture really came from Animation Insider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UBracter (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)200px[reply]
It looks like you needed to update the fair-use rationale template. I did this for you. You just have to make sure that the template has a link back to the article you want to use it for. You do this by typing in the name of the article into the template. In the future, you should make sure that the image is no larger than about 300 pixels wide, so that it is low resolution. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to know after editing and adding new information to a certain page, how do I know that it wont be deleted. Where do I send proper evidence of the editing information to stay on wikipedia? The page I am refering to is List of Armenians under the headline Authors. I added a new name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anushdesigns (talk • contribs) 06:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
dear sir my great grandad richard s rex was one of the miners that were killid at senghenydd mine in 1913 i am given to understand that photos of all the miners who died were prited later that year with there names if so how do i get a copy my emailis <personal info removed> thank you for any help you can give me yours bruce wherlock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.41.154 (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot User:STBotI had warned me that I didn't add a rationale on the photo I've uploaded which uses a {{Non-free fair use in}} tag. The photo is Image:Reed Bank oil field.jpg. However, I've added a section on the page titled "Rationale" the exact moment I've uploaded the image. I've renamed the section to "Fair-use Rationale", just in case the Bot checks for sections with tag Fair-use. Anyway, what I want to know is why it had given me a warning regarding the rationale. I just want to prevent things like that to happen in the future. Estarapapax (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to specify the article. Each article the image is used in needs its own rationale. I've corrected it for this image. :) Lara❤Love16:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on the site for Stephen Hannock and have edited his page including adding a jpeg of one of his paintings, with the appropriate title and copyright line, to the page.
--Mythico (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:2001.153.L.jpg does not meet the requirements of our image use policy. Copyrighted images must be accompanied by Fair use rationales, however, replaceable fair use images (i.e. living persons and other images which could be replaced with a free version) are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. This image would fall under replaceable, as anyone can go take a picture of that area and freely license it.Lara❤Love18:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, that's a painting. Wow. That's amazing. Okay, so it needs a fair use rationale, it also needs to be tagged with the appropriate license ({{Non-free 2D art}}) and the caption needs to remove all the copyright information. We don't do that here. Lara❤Love19:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For this image, the author put "creative commons" in the comments section, so can I add
{{cc-by}}, the bare bones creative commons license as a copyright licensing information? SpencerT♦C02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. There are some Creative Commons licenses which are unacceptable on Wikipedia (any with the nc or nd elements) so you need to ask the uploader to clarify which CC license he/she has in mind. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 18:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have an image placed into an article [16]. I tagged it with what I thought was a truthful template stating that it's a a photo of Kurt Kaiser, and that it's not free and that it's being used in the Kurt Kaiser article.
The image just got tagged and I will admit, before the tagger does, that I lost my cool
and claimed I'd revert his tag. I didn't and I won't (Been there, already done that,
already got the ban for it too!) I don't belive the tag is correct. NOTE: I'm not asking that it
be fixed for me, that's my job. Just look at it and tell me if you think the tag is right.
Thanks!
Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!!14:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it is possible (however hard) to get a free image of this person, since they are still alive. Further, there seems to be no reason this specific image must be included in the article, as it seems to just show what they look like. Also, the image is rather large. My general rule of thumb is to have no image size more than 300 pixels in any direction (this image is 640x480). Lastly, "screenshot of a webpage" is not really accurate. You got it from a webpage, but it isn't really a screenshot of a webpage. Perhaps just using {{Non-free fair use in}} would be sufficient. You should try and contact the subject and request a freely licensed image, see WP:COPYREQ for email templates and how to ask and what to do with the email once permission is received. You should fill out the entire rationale template as well. Please be aware that even if your request is denied (or ignored), it's still not sufficient reason to use just any image you find on the internet. MECU≈talk13:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permission for what? "To use on Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Please see WP:COPYREQ for information on how to request permission, a standard boilerplate release and what to do with the e-mail once you receive permission. MECU≈talk13:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images from over 100 years ago, but maybe not published
I'd like to scan in some images about the Highland Railway locomotives that have no illustration from a book but although they are mentioned as being made at certain times quite a lot before 1923, there is no mention of any previous publications and it would be hard to find if they have been published previously. The book is from 1988 if it matters. Is it possible at all to use these images in this case? --Tombomp (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have been having some trouble with an image I got of Glenn Strange on Flickr. I put all the information that was needed to explain why it should be posted. Apparently, Glenn's image is not filled with the correct template or something like that. Difficult to locate the correct one. I thought I did all I could do to explain the reason.
The only images that are allowed on Commons are ones that are freely liscenced, hence the speedy deletion template. As you've provided a decent fair-use reason and template, you could upload it to Wikipedia itself and it should be fine. In addition, make sure that the Fair use for <article> links to an actual article. Realise I'm not 100% on all wikipedia policies, hopefully somebody else could explain if anyhthing else is neccessary. --Tombomp (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi i was wondering how i could put a map on wikipedia. It is stored on my computer. How do u post it up on a page? ````
Did you create the map? Do you own the copyright on the map? Or did you get it from someone or somewhere else, like a website? MECU≈talk13:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello-I forgot to add the copyright tag to my uploading of the image of Image:Conway Town Hall.JPG. Please tell me how to go back and do it without creating a duplicate image. It is a picture taken by me, and should have the same GFDL tagging as every other picture I have uploaded. Thanks, ToddC4176 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should just be able to edit the page and add the right licensing template, most likely {{GFDL-self}}.
Hi, I was wondering how could I make a picture smaller or move it right or left...please reply
The photos that I've uploaded are definitely safe; they don't represent any argument or accused manner. They're from a respected site that doesn't possess any harm, for any misunderstanding please talk to me and thank you.
Looking for a pic of UK actor Russell Hunter I found a DVD of the Callan series he was in in probably the early 70's. If I use fair use rationale and low res, is it okay to take a screen shot to identify him and upload that to his article? Julia Rossi (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to clarify if possible, that I can use a screen capture from a television series to illustrate an article about an actor in that series. The actor in question is deceased, and the television series resides in the public domain. Does this sound acceptable? Rob Craig (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're absolutely sure that the series is in public domain you can make whatever pictures you like, tag them with the public domain thing with the right reason and use them where ever without worrying about fair use. --Tombomp (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A television series in the public domain sounds very unusual. You should be willing to provide evidence that the shows are actually under that license (or lack thereof). MECU≈talk18:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded this photo Commons:Image:Cleary Dan.jpg. In summary there are informations about author, source.Other images from this author are on wikipedia and all of them have Creative Commons Attribution license image. Then I correctly put image on his article.When I'm logged in, his article has picture (I saved page of article). If I'm not logged in or somebody open his article there is no picture. Probably it happens because the copyright status of the image was undeterminable by the bot, and requires human attention. It says that if you are an administrator or a trusted user, you can review the image and remove the tag. How I can solve this or contact them to review the image.
When you upload images from Flickr to Commons, and use the Flickr upload form, the image is automatically marked for review. In most cases a bot will verify the Flickr license is valid or compatible with Commons and change it to the green tag that is on the image now. The licensing is all okay, so you can go ahead and use the image. There isn't a need to upload an image from Commons here, as you did with Image Dan Cleary.jpg (which I've deleted). You can just use the Commons image like it was already uploaded here. That's the power of Commons! I changed the image on your userpage to the better named Commons image and deleted the other duplicate image at Commons. (Is this getting confusing for anyone else?) Go ahead and put the image in an article now like on your userpage. You may find Wikipedia:Picture tutorial helpful. Good luck! MECU≈talk18:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I obtained permission of the copyright holder, a realtor, today 03/25/08 and updated the information on the page related to the image Castle Hill (Virginia). Do I need to do anything else?
-Jdgowdy (talk) 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. What did you receive permission for? "To use on Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Please see WP:COPYREQ for the proper way to request permission and what to do with the email afterwards (hint: send to WP:OTRS). MECU≈talk18:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a number of Self-drawn Chemical Images which I uploaded to Wikipedia commons so as to transfer them to a couple of articles I am writing on the Wikipedia. It appears that there is a copyright problem with one or all of images. Is there a simple way to go to correct the problem? I have spent hours and gone around in circles to figure out what corrective action needs to be taken. I am at a stage to give up adding structures to my write-up, which will be a shame since without them, the information will be less than useful.
In addition, how can one import them from Commons into Wikipedia proper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sqa rizvi (talk • contribs)
Copyright wise, they have no problems. You have licensed the images correctly. However, they were deleted not for copyright concerns, but they were deleted because there are various other images that cover the same information already present. As for trying to use the Commons images here, you use the same format for images. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate Zscout370: You do not need to upload the images from Commons here. If they are on Commons, they are already here! Just use them like they were already here, the images will "magically" show up. This is the power of Commons. MECU≈talk18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have my reservations about whether this is appropriate for Wikipedia, since it would be possible for a photographer to take a replacement picture and release it under a free license. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had contributed a brief introduction about a sport PITHU GOl GARAM played in pakistan , I have a message indicating that i had attached an image that I had not copy rights to. I just wated to clrify that i have not attached any photographs and do not have any photos in that article
Thankyou wikipedia team
Junad Khan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junadkhan (talk • contribs)
This is regarding Image:Mammootty.jpg. Author had claimed that it was a self-made image. So I corrected the license tag as pd-self. however, the deleted admin did not mention any proper reason to delete it (just added a note that it is a blatant copy vio per WP:IUP. I wish to know that what was the actual problem with this image. I had asked this to the deleted admin & not a reply posted yet. --Avinesh Jose T 07:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was blatantly obvious that the uploader did not take the photograph, it was clearly a promotional image. Once you have dealt with images for a while, you'll find it becomes much easier to spot blatant copyright violations like this. On top of that, though, the only other image the user uploaded was also a copyright violation (even though the user falsely claimed ownership of that, too). And just a few minutes of searching pulled up the source of the Mammootty.jpg image, here. In any case, you should not have placed pd-self on the image unless you had evidence that the uploader wanted the image released to the public domain (instead of, say, under the GFDL or some such) and even then, you should have taken a few minutes to search to verify that the uploader wasn't providing false information. --Yamla (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is true that the image is there in the copyrighted webpage you given (coz I forget what was it). But does it mean that the webpage company is actually taken the image & uploaded? Sometimes some freelance photographers upload their own work to some WebPages. That is why I suggested that unless there is some dispute/argument comes from the webpage co., by WP:AGF, WP:IGNORE, WP:INSPECTOR, I’d suggested in the deleted image talk page to leave it as it is. --Avinesh Jose T 05:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've found a site claiming ownership. The user who uploaded this image is therefore responsible to prove that he actually took the photograph and owns the copyright. This is almost guaranteed not to be the case, and copyright violations are a very serious matter. Without further evidence, we have to accept the website, a large official website, is being honest with its copyright claims rather than a user with virtually no contributions and whose only other image was also a blatant copyright violation. It's quite likely that the user took the photograph and clipped it in a tool like Gimp or Photoshop and this is why they claimed ownership. --Yamla (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a collection of photographs from when my grandad was in the parliment in Kenya. I uploaded one of them and was asked about copyright. I'm not exactly sure of what I should do, since the fact is that these photos belong to me. The photo is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kenyan_Leaders.jpg
Please tell me what I should do about this issue as it is my own personal photo.
so i wanted to know, seeing as the pics i want to add or of a band and/or artists, and are professional, publicity pictures, what kind of tag or whatever do i need to add? and all the pics i want to add have been approved by the artist for me to use, so not sure what else i need to do at this point. i do know they are approved for my use, seeing as keri kelli sent them to me, just for the purpose. what's my next step here?
please get back with me as soon as possible.
thanks! SOTUFan
I'd like to add this image to the William Ranney article. Since it's from 1853, does that not mean that it's in the public domain? I could not find a "Public Domain" option in the upload wizard. Can I use it, and if so, how do I upload it? Nightscream (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I need help in the proper licenses as I have uploaded 2 images on the articles James Franciscus and in the middle of the article about Lon Chaney Jr.. I have spent long hours on trying to put the right words and templates to each image. I need your assistance.
Thanks,
Electric Japan (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You only need one summary of the image, then one tag for the copyright status, then one rationale for each use of the image. I've shrunk it down to a manageable size. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded these photo from various US Govenment web sites - some are also over 50 years old (WWII pictures) being threatened by this used because he feels that a description of fair use with a US Govenment License is not good enough
Well, there's no such thing as "the fifty year rule".
Are the images the work of the US Federal Government or did you just randomly find them on a website that might or might not be a Government website and hope they'd pass muster? Stifle (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And even if they were, you still have to provide the source of the image, i.e. the URL where you got the image. Don't remove the "no source" tags until you do. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded an image I made successfully but I cannot seem to add a caption to it in a article that I am editting. The image is interstitial space.jpg and the article is called interstitial space.
Any image you make is automatically copyrighted when you create it. If you're looking to register your copyright, it varies from country to country; United States for example, is here: [17]. If someone on Wikipedia is asking for the copyright status of one of your self-made images, you get to decide which license; see WP:ICTIC. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a questions about inserting a picture of Phormia regina in the taxonomy box. I have written permission to use a picture taken by a man at the University of Kentucky. I have his email address. Every time I try to upload the picture, 1. it is not properly in the taxonomy box, and 2. the picture gets deleted quickly because they say copyright policy is violated. Please help!! thanks. Kt babe8 (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)kt_babe8[reply]
If you just got permission to use it on Wikipedia, that's why it got deleted. It has to be usable by anyone for any purpose. If you get it uploaded, I'll try to help get it onto the infobox if you ask. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi i was wondering if someone could help me with the copyright of these two images
on www.makedonija.info/language.html there is an "old-style" map under the heading of Macedonian and Neighbouring Languages. It is the second section from the top. 1. Can i upload this image onto wikipedia? 2. What is the copyright?
2.maps.blog.com.mk/ on that website there is a map at the EXTREME bottom of South-eastern europe, can i upload that onto wikipeida? 2. IF not, how else can i get it onto wikipedia? (possibly graphics labs??
please help!
I am posting here as it is related to image copyright- I have recently come across these guidelines, and I have raised concerns about their status as a guideline on the talk page. Anyone interested in contributing to the discussion can do so on the page's talk page. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a couple of images on the Hungarian Wikipedia that we could do with in the English version.
I previously uploaded them to Commons, only for them to be deleted. I have contacted the photographer, who is happy for them to be used in/on the English Wikipedia.
Please advise how I should go about doing this vis-à-vis licence. (Grateful if you could post the response on my Talk page.)
If you need to see the original images, they're at: [18] and [19].
Dear Nick I am interested in using the BARcode Stencil for an academic book that I am editing on Debt. What do I need to do or who should I contact to get permison to print it? Best, Sheila Macrine my home email is: nmacrine@aol.com
Sorry, which image are you talking about? The image name can be found in big letters directly below the tabs and above the line "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Thanks. howcheng {chat}19:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to know who the copyright holder is, so we can know who can release the image. If the copyright holder will not release it through either adding a free image tag to the image itself or communicating the permission to WP:OTRS, it is a non-free images. AFAIK, the view of the village of Bedeciu still exists and could have a picture taken of it by another person and released to Wikipedia under a free license. Therefore, it would be a replaceable non-free image, and not something that we could keep in Wikipedia. MBisanztalk02:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm confused. You took the picture. How are you not the copyright holder? Did you sell/give it to that website? Did they hire/ask you to take those pictures for their use? Basically, how does that website have a claim to the image. MBisanztalk02:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, unless you were acting as an employee for the web site, you are still the copyright holder of the images. The only way that the web site would own the copyrights is if you transferred them over -- did you sign any legal documents, or did you just give them the photos? If the former, please look through your documents carefully to see if ownership was transferred. Otherwise, it's your photo. howcheng {chat}19:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i uploaded a pic to be used in my article 'KANGDI', but it doesn't show there and the picture page shows it has no info about copyrights whereas i had put it in common usage.please rectify the problem for me.
GULMARG99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GULMARG99 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a photo of a cricket player and have asked the person who took it whether he would mind it being used on Wikipedia. He has agreed, what do I need to do next?? I thought that would be enough, but does he need to send me an e-mail with that licence stuff in it?? Then I have to forward that to Wikipedia?? It's such a massive headache, I might just give up.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobishero (talk • contribs) 09:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most important item to keep in mind is that it is not enough to get permission to use on Wikipedia. It has to be usable by anyone, for any purpose. See WP:COPYREQ. If it's really too much, you may be able to get one of the people here or there to take over, if you ask. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a photo of a Benecol product in order to upload it to be used on page Benecol.
Similar pictures in other pages, such as Becel and Image:Rama-Margarine.jpg, are marked as free images.
Hoever, when I go to the upload page of Wikimedia Commons, it says there:
Not permitted: Photographs of art, statues, commercial packaging and often toys.
So, because it is picture of packaging and contains logos and package design, it would not be free image and I would need to upload it as fair use image?
And if that is the case, what should I write to the fair use rationale?
Well, I think the reason there is inconsistency is that there is no one answer for all cases. Is there art on the packaging, or is it just a text logo? Is the art on the packaging the focus of the image, or is it incidental to the full photo? If there was doubt, I'd upload it as a fair use image, and then ask if people thought it could be put under a free license. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most packages contain some graphics, and the package design itself is a copyrighted work. On the other hand, taking a photo of a 3D item is not copying, since you can not use the photo to replace the product or it's packaging. It is not the same as taking a photo of 2D work, which can be considered to be a copy. But the instructions do not mention anything about photographing a 3D item (except that the photographer has the copyright for the photo).
In this case, I think I will use free copyright since other similar pictures I mentioned are free images also. This makes it easier to use the same picture in other languages versions of Wikipedia.
I was going to upload the image as free image in Commons, but I read again the instructions and it is quite clear that it is not allowed to upload it (commercial packaging). Which means that those other images I mentioned above are illegal, too. So I thought I will upload it as Fair Use image. But that is not possible either. None of the lisences available fit to the image. The image is not an album cover, stamp, screenshot or anything like that. It is a photograph of a real word product (margarine box) that I have photographed myself. There is no lisence for that. So I guess the only option is not to upload the imagea at all.
I can't follow all the copyright info you suggested to me. The photo I uploaded is MY photo and the copyright is my own. So can you tell me simply how to keep this photo of my friend Francie on Wikipedia please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatleseugene (talk • contribs) 22:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. First of all, Wikipedia doesn't accept images that are licensed for Wikipedia-only, or that don't allow modifications to be made. If that's okay, ask yourself: Do you want users of the photo to have to credit you as the photographer?
Am I correct in thinking that a source is required for Public Domain images? For example, Image:Imrei Emes.jpg. It is tagged as a Public Domain image. I came across it, and noticed it did not have a source so I tagged it. In the edit summary of the following edit it was stated that Public Domain images do not need a source. Could someone clarify this for me?--Rockfang (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Common sense always trumps all rules. If a public domain claim is obviously correct, as it is in this case, there's no need to know the source. Sure, it would be nice to know where it came from, and if the uploader is still around perhaps he'll add it, but he may not be. Lack of this information is not enough to justify deletion, so long as there is no question that the image is in fact in the public domain. -- Zsero (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? And why? Specifically, what authority exists for anyone to delete an image whose PD status is not disputed, just because we don't know where it came from? -- Zsero (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure what to class this [20] image under because its a image I made myself but the caracter in the image is from a video game Advance wars2 so i don't know what to put it as especially seeming it's for my user page not a article?--Nintyuk (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
copyright status varies. If you click on the images you are interested in you will find information on the copyright status.Geni09:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recently received a message from a bot saying to copyright my image, Line 1.PNG
1.I have no idea how to copyright.this means I have no idea how to copyright on Wikipedia either.
2.How do you copyright on Wiki?
--Owlwinds (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)This message will self-destruct in 5..4..3..2..1..BOOM Ignore that last part.[reply]
Everything that's your original work is automatically copyrighted. First of all, Wikipedia doesn't accept images that are licensed for Wikipedia-only, or that don't allow modifications to be made. If that's okay, ask yourself: Do you want users of the image to have to credit you as the author?
I am trying to upload my page and I am receiving the message 'permission error'. How do I go about uploading my page on the "Islamic Community of Regina, Saskatchewan'? Regina Muslim (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SAKET !!!!
SAKET
SAKET —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saketstar90 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how to use a little thing we call grammar?
It should say "How do I put up a picture?"
Work on your grammar.
19:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I recently wrote an entry on an artist (James D. Havens) who died in 1960 and who was a printmaker. My employer, a museum, owns a complete collection of his prints. I'd like to add an image or two to the entry but am comfused about copyright. Do these fall under fair use or some other? The family never renewed his copyrights. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.28.34 (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am a first time contributer and I'm doing a page on the ecologist David Tilman. I am having trouble with them threatening to delete all of my images. The first two I found online and have referenced the site where I got them but it is still saying it is going to delete them. The third one is a graph from one of the journal articles that he wrote and I have his permission to use the image but again it will not allow me to. I have referenced all of these images so that someone can tell where I got them from. Please explain to me what I need to do to get them to leave the pictures alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharr2 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where you seem to be running into trouble is the fact that Wikipedia is not just interested in getting permission to use images in Wikipedia, but allowing anyone to use the images, including making modifications if they desire. See WP:COPYREQ for information on how to ask. If you've taken care of the problem that led to the image being tagged, you can remove the tag pointing out the problem. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Moudud.jpg
I need help in deciding whether the image can be used on a Commons license on Wikipedia, because the website does not mention it is copyrighted or not, and could not find many information. Please Help with the license, Thankyou! Link of image: [21]
I've had a dig around the PD categories, and I feel that {{PD-art}}'s phrasing is more suitable, as it is a photographic representation of a piece of card. Would it be excessive to refer to a simple train ticket as a work of art? Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original photographer has just agreed to release the image, so the worry is over. I do, however think that the photo was suitable for {{PD-art}}, if not for the fact that it was taken in the UK. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going through and cleaning up some links to a link that is getting ready to be blacklisted and ran across this image, Image:Smoky Parachuting.jpg. It is currently identified as being in the public domain, but the image itself includes a rather prominent copyright notification. The dog was found during WWII and the person taking the picture was actually a member of the US Armed Forces at the time the picture was taken. Question I have is, just because a person is a member of the US Armed Forces, does that make any image they take public domain, or must the person be taking the images on behalf of the service? --Bobblehead(rants)22:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a picture of the real Smoky, the 1998 copyright is false. Judging from the times Smoky was alive, unless copyright for the image was renewed, it's public domain simply on basis of age. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, the great cross-tabbing is done and there is a list of 700 images at User:Betacommand/Sandbox 3 that show images classed as both free AND non-free. Obviously, an image can only be one of the two, so if editors could go through and correct the images, striking them out on the master list. Thanks. MBisanztalk02:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am wanting to upload several images of governors of Indiana. They are all dead. I want to upload their official portraits, they are paintings. All the artists are also dead. I want to use the images on their biographies. I've already did this on the older ones using the published before 1923 option or the author died more than 100 years ago option. however I am unsure what to do with the newer ones. For example the portrait of Warren T. McCray was painted in 1927 and the artist died in the 50s, I think it would be fair use to use a lowres portrait on his biography, but I don't see an option in the upload wizard that seems to fit the definition. Any help would be really appreciated :) Please advise, thanks Charles Edward18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use {{Non-free 2D art}} as the license - be sure to include a fair use rationale. It should be easy to justify if the subjects are deceased, obviously a free alternative cannot be made in that event. Kellyhi!19:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an image of Iain Lee here: [23]. It is on another wiki and has a Promo licence. If it fits the criteria for that wiki, would it be ok to upload onto Wikipedia for use in the Iain Lee article? WazzaMan (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the images published by the Government of India in the Press informatin Bureau website can be uploaded into Wikipedia. The website claims its free and meant for the press/media/public. Source:[24]. The copyright holder is obviously the PIB. But they are stating that those images published can be used free can these images be used in Wikipedia.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To ask questions, or to make further comments, please go to Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk.
Resolved
Done Replied on user's talk page. MECU≈talk 18:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AFrench_university_icon.png&diff=191256497&oldid=191242251){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Haikouichthys.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lenzing_logo.PNG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atwaterkent.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Christian_Owen.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=192110513){kind=link}
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Seducing_Sammy.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=191938703){kind=link}
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Desperate_houseboys.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=192032621){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Sex_Motel_cover.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=191887586){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:2120cha01122.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=191883144){kind=link}
![[16]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KKaiser.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[18]](https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A9p:K%C3%B6z%C3%B6ns%C3%A9ges_tarkalepke_herny%C3%B3.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A9p:K%C3%B6z%C3%B6ns%C3%A9ges_tarkalepke_b%C3%A1b.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k205/nintyuk/full-colin-blinking.gif){kind=link}
![[23]](http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Image:Iain_Lee_Picture.jpg){kind=link}
