Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2007/August

image copyright

How do I verify that any image that has been in an article for 2 or more years is free to use?
For example: how do I verify this image? Image:IBM PC 5150 Image.jpg Alatari 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't bother. There's no claim that it's free to use; it's tagged {{non-free promotional}}. It does require a valid non-free use rationale though, which probably cannot be provided since I don't see how this is not replaceable. If there was a discussion in one of the articles about the use of this photo in the marketing campaign for which it was made that would be one thing, but it looks as if it's being used only to show what an original IBM PC looked like. Surely a free replacement can be made. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a picture of the Altair 8800 that was deleted by an Editor User talk:ElinorD/Archive05 and it was of the same non-free promotional style. Why was one picture deleted and not the other? It's not like I have a circa mint condition 1975 Altair 8800 around to photograph. And the photograph in the main article is poor imo Alatari 02:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the one got noticed and not the other. Really. That's all. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded an Altair photo for the Altair 8800 article. Image:Altair 8800 Computer.jpg I hope the picture does not get deleted because I did not get a notarized release statement from Erik when I took this picture of his computer. -- SWTPC6800 03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You took the photograph. That makes it your work to license as you want; the owner of the computer is immaterial. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Very cool response time. Thanks for the new picture, SWTPC6800!!! Alatari 05:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Is a reproduction still public domain?

I have a book called the History of Linn County Iowa. It was originally published in 1911, however, the copy I have is a reproduction of the original. It says: A reproduction by [company] [address] 1973. Do images scanned from this book still qualify as public domain? It was published in the United States. Psychless 01:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Then can you answer this too, TCC. That the existing images in Thomasites are also public domain based on their actual sources even if they were from a book? Thanks in advance. Dragonbite 02:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to reproductions of artwork, as a matter of US caselaw faithful reproductions of 2D art in the public domain is also in the public domain. There is insufficient original work added to make it a derivative work and therefore subject to copyright. Wikipedia relies on this heavily; see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. What counts is the age of the artwork and the date of first publication. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So, in conclusion, should I or should not leave the current tags as they are (i.e. copyrighted tag from a book or become public domain tagged)? Dragonbite 05:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have enough information to tell you that. How old are the images, how do you know, and how old is the book? TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The two existing images in the Wikipedia Thomasites article were taken from the 1989 book by Stanley Karnow, but they were derived by Karnow from the U.S. National Archives and National Historical Society (Thomas Jefferson Collection). - Dragonbite 13:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't tell me when the originals were made. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The book doesn't say... they were "center fold" images inserted in the book labelled with sources with captions written by the author. Dragonbite 19:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The information that matters is when and where the originals were published, less so the derivatives. - cohesion 00:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of the images/photographs were taken in 1901-ish. That was the time the Thomasites first arrived in the Philippines. Karnow's book does not provide any other information on when and where these images were first published. Dragonbite 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Try looking in the front- or end-matter. That's where photo or image credits are often placed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Adverising

Why are you demeaning short people in promoting you're shrimp specials on TV? You relate shrimp to short people and the dictionary states shrimp as being small insignificant people. I found your advertising to be very offensive.

This is Wikipedia, a free content encyclopedia. This particular page deals with questions people have regarding copyright and image tagging. If you have any questions regarding that please let us know. - cohesion 00:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Image of Ron Mark MP from his partys (NZ First) web site.

Hi,

My first go at this. I thought I would add the photo as the text seems to be the same as the bio on the govt and party web sites. Had no idea there was so much legal stuff. I believe this is Public Domain. I am sure Ron Mark would have no problem with uploading this image. The URL is http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/images/pic_mark.jpg. What do I need to do?

Cheers, Timothy Waikato New Zealand —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tjc1961 (talk • contribs).

The image most likely is not in the public domain. If he is ok with the image being on wikipedia I suggest you follow the guidelines at this page to request him to license it under some free content license. This way the image can be freely used on wikipedia and in other sites that may want to utilize free content. - cohesion 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Chances are though it would be uncontested fair use. Really, use of promotional photos for living people should be acceptable fair use - but at the moment it isn't. Is there a short reason why promotional photos can't be accepted under fair use guidelines?Garrie 01:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Because fair use images are contrary to the goal of the project, which is to create a free-content encyclopedia. Sometimes an article is incomplete without them, so they're allowed if necessary, but they're not allowed if unnecessary. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted?

Excuse me, but I would like to know EXACTLY why, my pages and files were deleted from the Wikipedia Domain. I have created all images and Information myself and nothing in there could possibly copyrighted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belial 666 616 (talk • contribs)

Do you remember the filenames that you uploaded? It is basically impossible to answer your question without them. Calliopejen1 02:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the upload log lists deleted images. He's referring to Image:2 001.jpg and Image:NightmareBeauty.jpg. Both were deleted because they had no indication of their copyright status. I note that they both should have been tagged "no license", which would have given the uploader time to add tags. I'm guessing this step was skipped because the images were only used in an article about a band that was deleted for not asserting notability. I suggest that the uploader review WP:N and WP:IUP for guidance on how to avoid this in future. -- But|seriously|folks  03:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

photo permission

i am the person which this profile is belonged.. i uploaded my own photo aricle. will any problem occur?..

I assume you are talking about Image:Image000.jpg. This looks like it is a photograph of a newspaper article. If this is true, it is almost certainly copyrighted and will need to be deleted. Copyrighted images can only be kept if they meet wikipedia's nonfree content guidelines, which can be found here. Calliopejen1 04:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fernando_Amorsolo_1a.jpg

Could someone please kindly check if the tags are now correct for Image:Fernando Amorsolo 1a.jpg. It is still tagged "in dispute". I made corrections sometime ago. Thanks. Dragonbite 00:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No they're not. First, a self-portrait doesn't qualify as a promotional image in the usual sense, even if exhibitors of the artist's work happened to use it for promotional purposes. Second, the image is being used merely to show what he looked like, which is a textbook violation of WP:NONFREE. In fact, most of the artist's paintings being used on that page are for decoration only since there is specific commentary in the text on only a few of them, if any. Most of them will probably have to go too. I see that at least some claim an Art Libre license, but that's highly questionable considering the artist died in 1972. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the WP:NONFREE violation for the image in question. This is a picture of a deceased person, not a living one. If there is a free image available to identify the artist in question that should be used. If not, a non-free portrait (or preferably, a photo) will do. Some of the other images, indeed, are not appropriate if they are under copyright because there is no discussion of them in the text. It's okay to include a few paintings if they are specifically discussed for their own sake or with respect to the artist's style, technique, etc, but not to simply put them up as a sort of gallery. Wikidemo 01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That's correct in the instance of the self-portrait; I had a momentary lapse. However, without critical commentary or analysis, you can't justify more than one or two of the paintings under the non-free media policy, and never a gallery. They are furthermore mistagged when they purport to be under a free license. We can't be stealing someone else's copyright. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The gallery and images where indeed placed in the article to present the painter's style, technique, etc. Without them, the article will be less and less interesting. The casual reader will be more engaged with the article leaving the images intact. I myself is still fully "engaged" with this article after completing it. The images give life to the article. Dragonbite 02:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to go beyond simply including the images and letting the reader infer the painter's style and technique. To justify why these particular images are in the article, you should have discussion in the article of how these specific images illustrate that style. You have to tie the text and the images together. Otherwise you are not doing any more than just showing readers a series of images (a gallery) and letting them make of it what they will. Wikidemo 02:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So, tagging suggestions, please? Dragonbite 05:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag it {{non-free fair use in}}, and make sure the rationale addresses the ten points at WP:NFCC. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone already did. Apart from your help, I am also receiving assistance from User:Calliopejen1, who volunteered and did a lot! And still doing more! - Dragonbite 02:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding publicity rights

I posted this on the Commons Village Pump but never really got a full answer so I thought I'd try it here...

I contacted the author of this photo enquiring whether she may be interested in releasing it - with the intention of it being used to illustrate a recent Miss Tennessee. Her reply brought up an issue I have never encountered before. Can anyone give any suggestions as to what I should tell her? Do we in fact need the photo subject to sign off? I can imagine there would be issues if the photo were taken as part of a photoshoot or something but from the caption it appears it was taken at a funeral (so I assume you could call that a public event).

Anyway this was the message:

"Hi thank you for inquring about the photo of Blair Pancake. I would beinterested in allowing it to be used however wouldn't I need to get a model release form signed by Blair to allow anyone to use her photograph?"

Thanks for any advice... PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Publicity rights are often a matter of state law, and it matters a lot if the subject is in a profession that ordinarily requires her a public figure (other than things like elected office). California law is quite stringent in that regard. She may well be correct under applicable law. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Right of Publicity", or "personality rights", differs, as Csernica notes, between jurisdictions, so my sweeping generalizations will undoubtedly be inaccurate (not to mention IANAL); but I am under the impression that they apply only to the commercial use of one's name, image, identifiable information, etc. A free image, as defined by Resolution:Licensing policy, need only be "free" (as defined by freedomdefined.org) in terms of copyright, but may have other non-copyright restrictions. Note also that Commons has Template:Personality rights.

I am under the impression that works, even of identifiable persons, may be used on Wikipedia, and that it is the sole responsibility of the reuser to ensure they are not infringing on someone's personality rights. Using the Flickr image, then, would not be inappropriate; the uploader, however, is free to withhold his/her image if s/he is unsure if s/he wants it to be published on Wikipedia. --Iamunknown 01:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Californian's protecting their celebrities, huh? Lol. Well Miss Tennessee isn't exactly a publicly elected official but she is a public figure so I'm assuming it should be okay. I'll forward these comments to the author and leave the decision up to her. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It does have mostly to do with commercial exploitation of a celebrity's images. California law even protects it for 50 years after a celebrity dies. By the same token, its commercial exploitation that typically decides whether a release is actually necessary. For a freely licensed image then, probably not. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, personality rights still come into play even when the photo is freely licensed. See [1] for a recent ad campaign by Virgin Mobile in Australia that used CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licensed photos from Flickr. howcheng {chat} 21:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsure of License to Use for This Image

Regarding the image Image:Polycarp1967.jpg, which I recently uploaded to Polycarp (children's TV show host):

I am unsure which license to use with this image -- can someone please advise me on this issue?

As I note in my fair usage justification, I believe this image falls into the fair usage category because:

• It illustrates the subject of the Wikipedia entry;
• It is being used for non-commercial, educational purposes;
• It is a low-resolution image that cannot be used for high-quality mass production;
• It was a promotional photo intended for widespread public viewing;
• It cannot be readily replaced by a free replacement image because the subject in question went off the air in the early 1970s and is deceased;
• I altered the original image, removing imperfections, increasing resolution, and tinting the original B&W photograph.

Finally, I use the same tag used on the Fred Rogers (of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood) for his photo (since he and my subject are both children's TV show hosts), which is "Non-free promotional" (in brackets).

Sincerely,

--Skb8721 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made some minor changes to the image, but it should be fine. It relies on our non-free content criteria, which you should read if you haven't already. Replaceability is the key aspect of the criteria in this context, and since the subject is deceased it is probably not replaceable. - cohesion 00:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your assistance! --Skb8721 14:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Image of satirical European map made before start of WWI

I have this image that I saved of a satirical map that appeared in a European magazine just before the start of World War I. I took the image from my "Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia" CD-ROM. Can somebody help me figure out what license applies? Thanks. --Replacement01 22:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is most likely not acceptable for inclusion in wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, which means all of our material is freely licensed. For a definition of freedom in this context see freedomdefined.org. The image you are talking about it most likely copyrighted or licensed by Grolier's. For more information about our image policy see the image use policy - cohesion 00:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Um... WWI started in 1914. Why would this not be PD? TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, there is no generalized prohibition against historical maps. Why would anyone want too upload a satirical map and for what purpose? Without knowing the context we could not speculate constructively even if the map were under copyright. If the map is not copyright the only issues relate to bias, encyclopedic content, etc., things we don't discuss here. Wikidemo 09:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Speculate constructively about what? If it's old enough to be PD, then it's PD, and if Replacement01 wants to upload it then why not, if there's an article where it's useful? (And if not there's always the Commons.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My comment means exactly what it says it means. You said it is "most likely not acceptable for inclusion in wikipedia" because it is a non-free image. I pointed out that there is no such generalized prohibition on historical maps said we cannot speculate constructively on that subject without more information. If it's public domain the issue is indeed moot. Right now it's an orphan image so it's doubly moot, so moot that there's nothing to decide at all. Only, I don't want people to be left with an incorrect understanding of image use policy based on our talking about nothing here.Wikidemo 19:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It was cohesion who said that, not me. There's no general prohibition on historical maps, true -- but why single them out? There's no general prohibition on any PD image. For maps that aren't PD it's a different story. Since a map can always be redrawn, a copyrighted map is never allowable. And it's not moot if the image is free. A non-free orphan image should always be deleted; a free orphan image ought to be moved to Commons. Anyway, it's older than 1923, which makes it PD under US law (almost certainly not registered when required), and conceivably still under copyright under the laws where it was originally published. There ought to be copyright information in the source. If Grolier claims exclusive copyright, then it was probably PD before and they're just not taking caselaw into account, so it remains PD. If they give no copyright information at all, then it's PD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the comment, "It is most likely not acceptable for inclusion in wikipedia." That's not a safe comment to make about any image without some context. I was concerned that Cohesion was either misunderstanding the guideline on maps (which you state correctly), or making a generalized statement that non-free images are likely inappropriate, both of which could give an inexperienced user the wrong idea. The question was about a historical and apparently "satirical" map, so we have to distinguish that from the broader case of current straightforward maps. Wikidemo 00:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, you are both right. For some reason I was reading that as a map done by Grolier's, although upon re-reading I don't know why. Disregard! I wasn't secretly referencing some map policy, I just read it wrong... :) - cohesion 02:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:ndlep.jpg

I need a tag for this image, but I don't know how or which one to pick. I got the image from the website marked on the image's page. If somebody could help me out, that'd be great. Please post a response on my talk page. Thank you, Libertyville | Talk 13:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

I responded at Libertyville's talk page – Iamunknown 15:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sergei_Bagapsh_signature.svg

This is a svg version of the jpg image of his signature found on his_website, created by me. Signatures are not subject to copyright law in the United States, but I don't know about Abkhazia. The image is technically in the public domain either way as the US have not signed treaties covering copyright with Abkhazia. But since we should respect their laws, fair use may be what I want. Ideas anyone? sephia karta 19:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of legislation or case law in the United States that say that signatures are in the public domain or are ineligible for copyright, but assuming that they are, using the signature on the English-language Wikipedia is fine. Works that are copyrighted in another country, if they are not or cannot be copyrighted (or if the copyright has expired) in the United States, may always be used on the English-language Wikipedia. (I cannot find an exact citation for this ... sorry.) (See the third and fourth paragraphs of Wikipedia:Public domain.) But the image should not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where "the copyright laws of both [the country in which a work was published] and of the United States apply to the upload" (see Commons:Licensing), unless signatures are ineligible for copyright in Abkhazia. So if signatures are ineligible for copyright in the United States, the SVG file may be used on the English-language Wikipedia. --Iamunknown 19:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. That signatures are in the public domain I got from the signature Wikipedia article, and the resp. statement is sourced. Don't know whether that's official enough though. sephia karta 20:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! That seems official enough, as it is from a United States copyright circular. Cheers, Iamunknown 20:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Non Free material

Can I download images or files for personal use such as music or album art if I already own the album and it is no longer available for sale, Difford_and_tilbrook_cover.jpgCotygirl 22:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a general copyright questions forum. It's for discussing whether copyrighted media can be used on Wikipedia. But I think the answer to your question is no, even if it's not available for sale, it's still copyrighted so you can't legally download it. Anyway, there are only 2 or 3 good songs there. If you're going to infringe on copyright, best to do it for East Side Story or Argybargy. -- But|seriously|folks  01:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would think it strongly depends on what legislation jurisdiction one lives in. For example, where I live, The Netherlands, it is in general legal to download music (uploading isn't). sephia karta 10:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

William Cooley Store picture

There is not a picture of the subject available anywhere, and the picture of his store would enrich the article, even not featuring Cooley properly.

The picture was obtained from the following collection: Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States. Commandery of the State of Massachusetts, collector. Civil War collection: Guide; Houghton Library, Harvard College Library.(http://oasis.harvard.edu:10080/oasis/deliver/~hou00124).

The description for the item is:

(509) Cooley's general store. 1 item in 1 folder.
Depicts a general store exterior with several figures standing in front.
A sign advertises the release of the book Morgan by Ned Buntline, released in 1861.
May possibly be the store owned by William Cooley in Tampa (Fla.).

Houghton's library policy: http://hcl.harvard.edu/libraries/houghton/reproductions.html

Thanks!--Legionarius 01:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Libraries and museums frequently assert publication rights over reproductions of public domain materials in their collections, but Wikipedia relies on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. to say this has no legal basis. (It's a district court decision and therefore is not binding precedent, but the reasoning is held to be sound.) Tag it {{PD-US}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thank you.--Legionarius 03:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

School Logos

Hi! I am working on a school article, and I plan to upload the logo. What is the policy and/or copyright regarding school logos, such as Image:Phs-bulldog.png and the school has been around since 1882? Thanks,
--FastLizard4 (Talk∫Other) 06:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not how old the school is, it's how old the logo is. I doubt it dates from 1882, but it still might be {{PD-US}} if it's from before 1923, from before 1977 without a copyright notice, or from between 1963 and 1977 with a copyright notice but the notice was not renewed. Otherwise tag it {{non-free logo}} and be sure to add a fair use rationale and source information. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What about pictures of the school itself (this one built in 1930 and renovated in 2004, if it makes a difference)?

--FastLizard4 (Talk∫Other) 02:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the picture. If you (or someone else) takes it and releases it under a free license, then it's acceptable. However, an image, say, from the school's website would be copyrighted and cannot be used. As an aside, please shorten your signature. 17Drew 02:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Images found in out-of-copyright online ebooks

Sites like googlebooks and msnlive and others have out of copyright books on them, is it ok to upload a decent picture from them and put it into a wikipedia article? In specific, this book [2] is listed as being out of copyright (1920), can i take a picture of a castle from it and use it in an article?--Celtus 09:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine. Since they're public domain, you may want to upload them at the Wikimedia Commons. 17Drew 10:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Gyrinicola batrachiensis images

hi... the images I have uploaded to my Gyrinicola batrachiensis website are both from scientific publications in journals from the last 5-6 years. I cannot find a proper tag for either one, and I don't want the images to be deleted if I use the wrong tag. I was thinking of proposing a tag:

{{Image template notice|SciPub} {{SciPub}}

I don't know if they are formatted correctly, but in any case, if those don't work can you direct me towards which tags i should use for the following images:

They are from publications that never mentioned anything about not being able to release the images for other publications as long as they were cited properly. This entire page was used for a school project that had no restriction/rule of not being able to publish the work online. Thank you.

There's no need for the new templates you propose. I'm not sure why people think otherwise, but scientific journals are no different from other publications when it comes to copyright. The school project is likely covered under normal US fair use rules, but Wikipedia uses a more stringent standard. I believe nonetheless that they're allowable under our non-free media policy. We can't expect a Wikipedian to have access to both an electron microscope and specimens of these organisms, so they're not really replaceable. Tag them {{non-free fair use in|Gyrinicola batrachiensis}}, and be sure to provide the source, copyright owner, and a valid non-free media rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with Licensing Category (for Scan of local TV Guide entry from 1969)

Hi, I recently added this entry Image:Polytvguide1.jpg to illustrate the entry Polycarp (children's TV show host).

As with the image I left a query about yesterday or so in regard to this entry, I again don't know which license to use -- can you assist?

Sincerely,

--Skb8721 15:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nevermind. I think I figured it out on my own. Thanks! --Skb8721 19:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What license has a image that derives from other image which has no copyright notes ?

I saw some images on the article about Conway's Game of Life and I've vectorized one of them. The question is: what copyright license shoud it have, beucase the initial works have no copyright notes ? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Game_of_life_block.png )

BTW: Some of the images are trivial to find, others require a bit of PC simulations, but are mathematical reppresentations and would have the same copyright notes as the mathematical formulas and the board used for "go" , so I think the best license would be "public domain", but I better ask the experts...

• I tagged it as {{PD-ineligible}} for you, since simple geometric shapes can have no copyright as they were first thought of thousands of years ago. -Nard 00:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks ! --Adrians25 10:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly plagiarised images

A user, who goes by Thunderspeed2, has been uploading animated images as his own work, when it looks obvious that he borrowed the images from a website. I believe these images to be copyright violations, and a few of them have been labelled as copyvios (see his talk page for more details). I don't know what to do with the others though. Could someone please look into this? --AAA! (AAAA) 04:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the images. They are all animations that have been marked as PD-self. A number of them are flagrant infringements (i.e. the Simpsons and Mickey Mouse ones), and since none of the images have any use in articles, I suggest they all be listed on PUI. nadav (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of page deleted?

I was just want to know why part of the page "Harem (genre)" was deleted on 21:26, 2 August 2007 and if you can put it back?

That's a content issue, not copyright. You'll have to take it up at Talk:Harem (genre). TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Local/state government copyright?

Is there a presumption that all images on US city/state government websites are copyrighted unless clearly stated otherwise? I would like to upload this image if it is not copyrighted. I searched the Milwaukee city government website for "copyright" and came up with no hits. Can anyone give advice? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 11:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PS a second question. There is an image here which I would be interested in uploading. The state senators website states "Photos on the Senate PhotoWire are intended for media use and may be freely reproduced.". Are we able use use these images or not? Thanks! I get the basics but I get stuck on these more curly questions :) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 11:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

On the first, yes, that's the presumption. All work is copyrighted unless there's a statute or license that specifically says otherwise. You will need to find something like that for Milwaukee in order to freely upload images owned by the city.

On the second, even with that permission this is non-free media by Wikipedia standards since there's no license for derivative works. The non-free media policy therefore applies.

In both cases it might be worth contacting the webmasters to see if the images you want can be made available under a free license. See WP:COPYREQ for some pointers on how to go about that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Help on copyright

I dont know how to do, can somebody on a simple way explain to me how to do it? Visca el barca 20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

how to do what?Geni 20:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Will my page become a part of the wikipedia free encyclopedia

I have created page for Cynthia ann Ressy-Nieves- a Puerto Rican writer, with a picture to be attached..will it be able to posted on line... you can contact me at: [email address removed]

Maybe! Create the article and find out. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think she's referring to her userpage. 17Drew 01:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Wetman 02:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Well, if User:Destinyhaze is the writer in question, then obviously not. Otherwise, your user page is not a suitable place for article development, and no one is going to create an article from it for you. From what you say there, you will need to show that she's especially notable or significant in some context. Has her work received any critical review one way or another, or is she particularly recognized, perhaps by the Puerto Rican community? TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the status of comments written after a copyright tag?

The image "Image:Galahs in eucalyptus tree.jpg" in the gallery on the "Galah" page, has a standard copyright and then there is a comment for people wanting to use the image commercially to email the user. I note that there is a link with the copyright to the users own page where there is a link to his website. I have not contacted the user about commercial use of his images, but it appears to be a restriction. I have seen a number of images with a similar comments written by this user. Is this actually a copyright status that is accepted on the wiki? Is this is a non-commercial licence? Is this spam? Snowman 09:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's released under the GFDL, so any commercial publisher is not required to ask permission. However, there's no harm in having a contact link there. You might drop the uploader a note that s/he may be misunderstanding the license the images are released under - a lot of people, I think, assume their work here cannot be used for profit, which is false. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I was out of town for a month and return to find a picture I took from a website I made taken down Image:Zacharycarrettin.jpg and something on my talk page about it 'failing first fair use'. What do I need to do to get the picture back up and avoid this in the future? FuriousFil 23:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image file deleted???

I recently recieved a notice explaining that a fair use rationale needed to be given for an image file that I had uploaded: Image:Byron-bab5.jpg. I grudgingly trauled through the literature, found the template, and updated the image file notes accordingly with a rationale as per the instructions.

I just noted that a bot had deleted it anyway.

Could someone please explain why it was deleted. Along those lines, I updated another file: Image:Spellforce2 boxart.jpg. Is there anything wrong with this fair use rationale that would lead it to be deleted?

I appreciate the desire to get people to "play by the rules", and I have tried in good faith to do so. But if someone like me (with a PhD) can't make sense of the rules enough to play by them, shouldn't the rules be made easier to follow? Dr Aaron 14:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The second one looks fine to me. Deletions in cases like that seem to be by bot-assisted users. The admin who deleted your image deleted about 600 others today and, judging from his talk page, made some mistakes, has been in some bellicose exchanges with users who insulted him, threatened to block a user unless he got an apology from them, etc. Therefore, I would either re-upload the image and make sure it has a proper copyright tag and use rationale, or else ask him nicely if he would please un-delete it so you can verify the rationale. Wikidemo 16:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Had you deleted the warning tag after adding rationale? If not, the bot was probably just looking for images that had been tagged longer than a set time period and automatically deleting them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The image Image:Byron-bab5.jpg was tagged as having no rationale by a human editor, and deleted by a human editor. The English wikipedia does not have any bots that delete images. A rationale was added by the uploader, but the "no rationale" tag was not removed. The rationale was somewhat short also. Please see the guideline for making rationales. This may have been an error, or the deleting administrator felt that the rationale was insufficient I don't know. To avoid this please remove any warning templates from images when you have corrected the problem unless the template specifically states not to. (most don't). - cohesion 18:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Now the other one is gone!

I just noticed that someone deleted Image:Spellforce2 boxart.jpg. I have no idea who deleted the pictures & how to chase them up. Or for what reason?!? I couldn't see any tags on them prior to them being deleted, and both had what I thought were acceptable rationales. I'm feeling a bit frustrated - it is this sort of thing that is increasingly decreasing my tendency to contribute to Wikipedia. I would appreciate help from an admin or someone who knows what to do in this situation. Thanks, Dr Aaron 14:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Logo Question

Are logos, if noted as a logo allowed to be used? From what I have seen, and I can give examples, sometimes they are okay and sometimes they are not. My particular concern is logos for college and pro football awards. Logos are given tothe media by award-givers in order to be identified with the award. Example: Rotary Lombardi Award. If they give a logo out in a press release why is it deleted in Wikiepedia? Jturney 01:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Logos are allowed in articles on Wikipedia only if you put up a fair use claim. In other words, you need to say why this logo should appear on Wikipedia. For an example, see Image:HeismanTrophyLogo.gif which has the proper license and tag. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 00:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not a good example. A good example should be Image:Logo Colegio San Ignacio.gif, which includes the proper template for fair use images ({{Non-free media rationale}}). All logos, like all fair use images, should only be included in Wikipedia if they meet the fair use rationale guidelines. If they don't meet that guideline, they will probably be deleted. --Boricuaeddie 01:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Google's satelite pictures

What copyright do google's satelite pictures have? Is this picture allowed "Image:Hearsall common copy.jpg"? I do not know who uploaded it. Snowman 16:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected by copyright and not allowed here. [3]. -- But|seriously|folks  18:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how google gets off claiming that the satellite images are copyrighted. Where do they get them? Do they really have the minimal quantum of creative authorship? Presumably they don't own the satellite or the technology even. Wikidemo 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

They buy the right to use them from the people who own them. These aren't USGS images; they're from commercial sources. (Yes, you can get commercially produced satellite images these days.) They actually source their imagery from more than one place. If you look closely as you zoom in on a region, you'll see the copyright notice changes depending on what exactly you're looking at. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use rationale for Image:MitM credits logo.jpg

I was alarmed, that one image that I once edited is missing a fair use rationale. I have updated the image description and would like to know if it's OK now. If there still is something missing, please let me know, so I can fix any errors.--BSI 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's okay now. I've removed the "no fair use rationale" template. --Boricuaeddie 01:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Sonic pictures"

Please tell me how I can save all the sonic pictures from being deleted? Wolly da wanderer 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about pictures of Sonic the Hedgehog? Since these are all non-free images, they'll all need valid non-free media rationales added to show how they conform to policy. I didn't see that any of them had one. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Releasing under GDFL

A lot of images such as publicity shots are no longer in use because of fair use restrictions. There's been talk among Wikipedians about encouraging artists to release some of these images under copyleft licensure.

How should a PR professional notate a client's image when releasing it via GDFL and uploading to Wikipedia or Commons? What would be sufficient to assure site volunteers that the upload is a legitimate copyleft release, and should the professional link to the client's website when uploading? Durova^Charge! 06:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If a PR person wants to release it publish it here under a free license, (s)he should email permissions-en@wikimedia.org so that someone with OTRS access can confirm that the uploader is indeed the copyright holder. 17Drew 06:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, PR professional's would ideally use the standard declaration of consent, hosted at Wikimedia Commons, which makes it clear and unambiguous (in terms of legal language), what they know, and what license they are licensing their image under.

If you are in contact with anyone who is willing to freely license an image to which they own or manage the rights, please consider using that declaration of consent. It makes work for the WP:OTRS-ers much easier. --Iamunknown 06:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there anything else you would recommend to business professionals who want to comply with Wikipedia/Commons standards when they do image uploads? I'm researching a new piece for Search Engine Land and want to communicate our sites' priorities to that community. Durova^Charge! 14:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Another way to accomplish this is to provide an image, clearly marked as creative-commons (or other copyleft) licensed on the company's/c<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">lient's official website. The image could then be uploaded to wikipedia, at which point the uploader should place a link back to this official site (as the source of the image) on the image page. This also would allow the copyright holder to have a link to the official site on the image page, which might be beneficial for him/her. Calliopejen1 06:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Durova^Charge! 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Free use with photographers name credited

Thanks, Sherool, for taking the time to help me understand this convoluted legal area. Eric Bibb's manager has just sent me a new photo stating "Eric owns the copyright as long as the photographer is credited." Can I use this? If so, what is the best way? -- Algrif 11:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for {{Attribution}}. You can use it, but remember to credit the creator of the image on all captions. --Boricuaeddie 11:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanx. I'll give it a go. -- Algrif 13:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you remember to spesify that they must allow the creation of derivative works and commercial use of the photo too? Sorry to further cloud matters, but if they just gave permission to use the image and nothing else it's at best very unclear wheter or not they actualy agreed to allow the creation of derivative works or commercial use of the image, wich must be allowed in order for it to be considered a free licensed image. Also please forward the mail you recieved to the permissions adress as specified at WP:COPYREQ. That way the permission can be independently verified later if questions arise. --Sherool (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem of coins, and PD-Art

I want reply here to a problem which has been raised at the template page of {{PD-Art}}, regarding the image Image:Domitianus coin.jpg, but of course extends to many more photographs of coins. This was the original message by Cruccone, with reply below from me:

This image has been tagged as PD-Art, however a coin is not a 2D work of art, therefore the photographer owns the copyright IMHO. I'm not reverting myself because I don't want to start an edit war. --Cruccone 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be reasonably argued that coins are, in practice, two-dimensional works of art. IMO they barely qualify as three-dimensional. I fail to see how photographing a coin requires creative input. See also this page for an earlier discussion regarding the same problem. Woodcuts, engravings, etchings, etc. are all commonly tagged as PD-Art, so why not coins? Moreover, at least in the case of ancient coins (Roman, Greek,...) the original author has been dead for over centuries, and the coins themselves are no longer legal tender. Unless of course there is already an official Wikipedia policy regarding coins (I did a quick search but found nothing yet). Otherwise I think this badly needs to be sorted. Regards. --Steerpike 23:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I’m not an expert on copyright, but I believe (based on what I’ve read here) that while the coin’s design might be PD, the photographer – or likely the museum itself – would hold the copyright to the photo. Unless a coin is unique or extremely rare, an alternative image could reasonably be expected to be available. You need “only” find someone with such a coin who would permit it to be photographed by a photographer willing to release it into PD under GFDL. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least in the case of Roman or Greek coins, most of them are unique or extremely rare, and they are usually sold to private collectors of who we have no contact information. Without those coin-archives on the internet I don't think we would even have pictures of a lot of them. --Steerpike 10:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

WP's lawyer says here that photos of coins are copyrighted. If they're super rare and in the hands of private collectors, they would probably fall under fair use. Calliopejen1 12:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Steerpike 13:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The "short answer" is that photographs of coins are potentially copyrighted. The long answer is that the courts have not decided, it is an emerging area of law, and there are strong arguments that they are. Which, for Wikipedia purposes, means we should be conservative and assume they are. If they are copyrighted, the fair use argument is very weak. Museums have traditionally limited access by photographers in order to control and thereby profit from licensing out pictures from their collection. If there is some pressing need to comment on the work in the collection then yes, there is a fair use argument. But using the copyrighted picture to illustrate something else (in this case, not the coins but the likeness of the Roman emperor depicted in the coins) is a non-transformative use of an entire copyrighted work in a way that interferes with the commercial purpose of the original, i.e. to be a licensable photographic record of an artifact. Using the potentially copyrighted image as part of a table of Roman Emperors runs afoul the Wikipedia rule against lists. Wikidemo 17:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Profit motive for museums with regard to PD art is really neither here nor there. They're just claiming rights they don't actually have. (They can, of course, limit photography on their premises, but there are valid conservation-related reasons to prohibit flash.) But yes, a coin requires a bit of work to photograph well mainly because it's not purely 2D. Here is a page on some of the issues in coin photography. (It's part of an absolutely spendid site on ancient coins, btw.)

The problem isn't about lists; it's about the nonfree policy. You can claim fair use if you're talking about that particular photo. Use of fair-use media for any other purpose -- for example, just to show what the subject looks like -- is a no-no. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's be careful about the limits of non-free policy. In some contexts it is okay to use non-free photographs to show what the subject of the photo looks like, and in most cases the use of a non-free photo is not to discuss the photo itself. However, in the case of a copyrighted photo of a piece of extant artwork, it is dubious per Wikipedia standards to use the photo to illustrate what the art looks like. The museum's profit motive in taking the picture is relevant because it goes to the underlying question of fair use -- Wikipedia's non-free policy may be more restrictive of images than fair use allows but it can never be less; we can never permit outright copyright infringement. So, if the picture turns out to be copyrighted, using it here to document an ancient artifact usurps the museum's commercial purpose in taking the photograph, which is to do the same. Until the new cases came down that museum photos of 2D artwork are not copyrighted, most people assumed they were. The cases were a surprise to many, and some think they are wrongly decided and could be overturned on appeal or not followed in other Districts. Until we know for sure it is risky to venture outside of the specific facts of these cases to assume that photographs of flat 3D objects like coins would be similarly uncopyrightable, given that truly 3-dimensional objects are indeed copyrighted, and the overall bias in favor of finding that things are copyrighted if they have even the slightest degree of creative expression. Hence our lawyer's short answer that yes, they are copyrighted. Wikidemo 15:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Not that photos of coins are copyrighted; I was quite clear that I think they are, so I have no idea why you felt the need to expound on it. We disagree on the nonfree policy. Unless there's a consensus for an exception in a particular case, a non-free image is never acceptable where a free equivalent could be made. None of these coins are so rare that a free replacement is an unreasonable expectation; we're not talking about museum pieces. Where a non-free image is used for other purposes, it's where it's not replaceable -- for example, illustrating an article about a dead person, since obviously a free replacement would be impossible. This is not a case like that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a disagreement. I expound because not everyone gets it. I differ because you seemed to suggest that use to show what something looks like is invalid per se, when the more general standard is that an image is replaceable. Aren't the Roman coins in question a unique find, available only in the museum? Whether yes or no, I say the image is replaceable and/or competitive with the original copyrighted work, so use is inappropriate here. Wikidemo 22:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I get for not looking closely. Yes, the Domitianus coin is very rare, but in general Roman coins aren't difficult to come by. You can typically find them by the hundreds on Ebay. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rico_J_Puno_The_Way_We_Were.jpg

"this image is from flickr, it doesn't appear to have been posted by the image creator however cohesion 02:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm. You have a point. So, how should this image be handled/tagged despite of its source and permission from so-called photographer? - Dragonbite 02:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)" - Dragonbite 02:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Now, I realized that the case is probably the same as Image:Hajji Alejandro Filipino singer.jpg; advice really needed for these two images/cases - Dragonbite 02:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

My comment above was copied from WP:PUI. Generally you shouldn't copy and paste people's comments around like this. I do watch this page, but if I didn't I imagine you could see the problem of having people respond to something you said in places you were unaware of having "said" it. - cohesion 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon. - Dragonbite 03:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just not usual. Could someone else please comment on this, I'm somewhat involved already. - cohesion 23:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a professional poster, not a creation of the Flickr user. If so, per Bridgeman v. Corel, the photographer / scanner has no copyright in it, so s/he cannot license it. Fair use at best. -- But|seriously|folks  00:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm... No need to invoke Bridgemen; this is a straightforward copyright infringement on the part of the Flickr user. Even if it wasn't a slavish copy it would be a derivative work, which no one but the copyright owner may authorize. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct license

What would the correct license be for the following image Immagine:MAS_esercitazione.jpg from the Italian wikipedia itself a download from an Italian Navy site . None of the options offered seem appropriate, and my attempt to upload this image under non commercial use offered a speedy deletion warning.

I presume that Italian wikipedia works under the same rules as English wikipedia so that an image available there should be available here. The alarming thing though is that I'm only trying to transfer the image here is because the image File:Mas15.jpg at MAS (ships) seems to have been deleted, and this image File:Mas15.jpg appears to be from the sameItalian Navy site site.

Thanks to anyone who can throw any light on what happened to File:Mas15.jpg, if it is possible to upload Immagine:MAS esercitazione.jpg to en wikipedia, and if it was, would it potentially suffer the same fate as File:Mas15.jpg. Thanks.KTo288 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the tag at the Italian Wikipedia: "Il detentore del copyright ne permette l'uso solo per scopi non commerciali." I assume there's some policy there that allows non-commercial restrictions on images, but such images are not usable here. The English Wikipedia only allows freely licensed media; it otherwise must conform to the non-free media policy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that wikipedia.it has as many users watching for images that violate its policies, so I wouldn't assume that an image's presence there means that it complies with those policies. The same is here and on commons, by the way, despite the number of users watching for violations, due to the sheer volume of uploads. -- But|seriously|folks  01:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If they have a tag for it, it's probably OK by their policy. The tag also says, "Va pertanto rimossa da eventuali versioni commerciali di Wikipedia." (I only understand Italian in a broad Romance-language kind of way, so I think I'm reading that correctly.) It may well be the case that they'll delete all these NC images someday, but they're apparently not willing to do that ATM, at least not until a version of the Italian Wikipedia becomes commercially available. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, its not really what I wanted to hear, I found that the "no commercial use" option would lead to speedy removal when I tried uploading, and had hoped that there was some license I'd overlooked that would allow me to use the images. I guess I'll just have to try and create a link to the image at Italian Wikipedia for as long as the image remains there.KTo288 08:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Image from another wikipedia

Hi, I uploaded Image:Alpide_Belt.jpg, which I found on another language wikipedia, but I have no idea whether it was fair use on there. It looks somewhat uncopyrightable. Can somebody check it please? Jamie|C 01:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the original image? --Boricuaeddie 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's here: map-bms:Image:Alpide_Belt.jpg. (Interwiki link on the image page was pointing to a nonexistent article, not the image.) There's no tag at all at the source, but this honestly looks {{PD-ineligible}} to me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Company logos that are not trademarks

What license template do you use for a defunct company's logo that was never a registered trademark and was never shown with a TM or copyright notice? What about trademarks that have been abandoned? My area of interest is computer companies from the 1970s, most ceased to exist over 20 years ago. -- SWTPC6800 02:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

They don't have to be registered. All works that are produced in a tangible form are automatically granted copyright. If you want to use them, you must use them as fair use. --Boricuaeddie 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the user Swtpc was asking about trademarks, not copyright, but the situation is similar. In the United States and most other jurisdictions, you are granted rights by mere use of a trademark in the marketplace (not necessarily through registration, though that can also be used). See trademark for more information. Calliopejen1 02:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to actively maintain a trademark. If a company abandons a trademark they lose it. A company that ceased operations 10 or 20 years ago no longer has the trademark. You can search United States Patent and Trademark Office and see which registered trademarks are "active" or "dead".

The question is about "dead" trademarks or logos that never had official trademark protection. -- SWTPC6800 03:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

They don't have to have trademark protection. US copyright laws protect the logos for at least 70 years. --Boricuaeddie 04:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of a defunct computer company, Smoke Signal Broadcasting. (I own some of their products.) The trademark was canceled February 26, 1985. You can do a search at www.uspto.gov. I guess I could use PD-ineligible because it is an abandoned or dead trademark. The trademark was for the "DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS". The USPTO says the trademark is dead. It was first used in commerce in 1976. (As a trademark not work of art with a copyright notice). -- SWTPC6800 04:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Trademarks are rarely extinguished through abandonment. A company must take affirmative, unequivocal steps to forever stop using the mark before it is judged abandoned. It is rarely inferred from the company's merely ceasing production of the trademarked product, or even going out of business. The trademark rights of a defunct company can be bought and sold, just as a copyright can. A canceled registration does not end the trademark. It just means the trademark is no longer registered. None of this matters a whole lot to Wikipedia because we don't deal much with trademark rights. However, for these reasons a logo that is copyrighted always ought to be tagged with a copyright tag indicating it is a logo, even if its use is historical. If there is no copyright then it is public domain, but it is still best to note that it is a possible trademark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)

What SWTPC perhaps has in mind is the way a mark can be lost if it becomes generic and is no longer useful to identify the specific product. This is why, for example, you'll find the makers of Kleenex taking out ads in writers' magazines to remind authors not to use its trademark as a generic term for facial tissue. It's how, for example, Sterling Drug lost the US trademark for "aspirin". (It had formerly been Bayer's, but the US rights to the mark were seized by the government after WWI, as Bayer is a German company. Sterling bought it from the government.) So for makers of very popular products, that popularity can cause them to lose their trademarks for them unless they take proactive steps to prevent generic use. But as you say, this is fairly rare, and probably not the case for anything he has in mind.

The USPTO actually will designate some marks as "abandoned". How they arrive at that determination I don't know, but they're not difficult to locate in their database. But a propos of SWTPC's question: a trademark doesn't need to be marked in order to be valid, and it can be very difficult to determine if an unregistered mark has been abandoned or not. Positive information to the contrary, we should identify it as a trademark using appropriate tags.

However, there are bots to consider. They expect that {{non-free logo}} is identifying fair-use media that need rationale. I'm not sure how some of them distinguish an apparently valid rationale from other text, but I've seen images with quite a bit of text, that actually made valid rationale if you read it, get tagged by bots anyway. It might be less hassle all around if old trademarks no longer under copyright are tagged with the appropriate PD template, and trademark information included in the text descriptions. Of course, this probably doesn't apply to most of the trademarks SWTPC has in mind either. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

rakshata

Question on fair use of a single Glossary entry from a book

I would like to upload an image of a single word definition that appears in the glossary of a book published in 1930 in order to document the use of a particular Sanskrit technical term as used in Buddhist Chinese translation. The book is in English, the Sanskrit word is shown in IAST romanization of the Sanskrit, and the Chinese translation for the term is shown in Chinese characters. I do not read Chinese and have no idea of how to type the characters into the computer. Also, the visual nature of the Chinese characters seems to call for a visual rendering so others can assist in identification of them. I have prepared an image of the single glossary entry, so it is not a scan of the entire page. Does this constitute a fair use, and can I go ahead and upload the image? If yes, what tag do I put on it? To help you figure this out I have been bold and uploaded it on the assumption that fair use is permitted: Suzuki 1930 image Buddhipriya 05:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the best way or reccomended way to do it the but here are are the characters you wanted, (密意)(密語)(一切深密義), you can copy and paste these into the article. If you need any more help tell me what page you're working on and I'll see if I can be of assisstance.KTo288 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the help. Can you please clarify for me what the copyright issues are with this type of fair use? I could not find this type of usage situation documented in the upload options, but it must come up now and then. Are the rules for this documented anywhere? The content question pertains to a debate about the relevance (or lack of it) of this term to the article Yantra. Buddhipriya 20:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help with regards to copyright questions, I'm only visiting this page because I have copyright questions of my own. However I saw that you wanted to input Chinese characters and thought I could help. Anyway thank for your cookie, does anyone have a cup of tea to go with it.KTo288 21:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you think including this picture adds beyond just describing what the glossary says and adding a citation. If it doesn't add anything, it is definitely not within Wikipedia's free content guidelines (though as a matter of law it might be fair use). Calliopejen1 02:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what the law is? The functional value of the picture is that it shows the exact Chinese characters in use in that book. It was used to permit recognition of the characters visually by persons who know Chinese. For that purpose it worked, as the comment above shows. However verification that the Unicode characters provided by the user above are in fact equivalent to the visual print version is still needed before we can safely assume that the digital reproduction is not needed to establish the point of fact. It would be helpful if someone can state positively what the rules are for this type of use. It is not a full page from a book, and I was unable to figure out what the rules might be for this type of partial reproduction intended to deal with a visual recognition issue. The upload interface doesn't cover this, as far as I can tell, and I found the upload process confusing for this specific license. If it is a fair use, what license should it have? If the rules cannot be articulated, how can we know if this case is permitted or not? Buddhipriya 03:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the limiting factor is probably Wikipedia policy, not the law. Wikipedia says that nonfree content should be used only where necessary and where equivalent free content is unavailable. Here there is no reason to include an entire glossary entry, even if it would be legal, because all you want to do is show what the Chinese character is. If all you want is to include the Chinese symbols themselves, you could crop those individually and mark them {{pd-ineligible}} because no one can copyright an individual word. Normally though in entries where Chinese is used I assume that unicode is preferred because it is standardized, searchable, and smaller. If the issue is whether the unicode is accurate, it would be easy to ask Wikipedia:WikiProject China to confirm. So in sum, because you could either use unicode (probably better) or an image of a single word, both of which are free, you cannot use a nonfree image instead.

As an irrelevant side note, the law of fair use is complex because it is determined by the accumulation of caselaw made by various judges. In many borderline cases, it is impossible to tell in advance whether a specific use would be legal. Here in my lay judgment this is pretty clearly fair use by legal standards, although for wikipedia purposes you just should use free content instead (because the goal of Wikipedia is to create free content). Calliopejen1 06:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The comment gives a helpful suggestion in that the characters themselves could be uploaded as individual images, that that may be a good alternative to uploading the citation that shows them in context. I agree that use of the unicode is preferable for Wikipedia electronic text, but that is irrelevant to the original problem, which is that the image needs to be visually examined by someone who knows Chinese so the characters can be identified accurately and verified as having been corrected rendered by the Unicode (密意)(密語)(一切深密義), supplied by a Wikipedian here who saw them by chance. I did not have a way to get these characters identified except by uploading an image of them because I have no idea how to generate Unicode Chinese characters and do not read Chinese. The Chinese characters are pictures (ideograms). I ask again, where is the law on this type of functional use documented? So far no one has provided any link to a clear statement of what the rules are for this type of usage. So far opinions range from clearly forbidden by Wikipedia policy to probably legal, but what are they basing these opinions on? If it is legal, what tag should be put on the image? Buddhipriya 03:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no range of opinions here as far as I can see--it is simultaneously both probably legal and forbidden by wikipedia policy. (Wikipedia policy is more restrictive than copyright law.) WP:NONFREE (the relevant policy) says that if a nonfree image can be replaced by a free image, that nonfree image is not acceptable. In this case, you could replace this glossary entry with pictures of individual words, which would accomplish your purpose and which are not copyrighted (a picutre of an individual word isn't copyrightable, except maybe if it were calligraphy). So that is what is correct to do according to wikipedia policy, and when it is done, the new images should be tagged {{PD-ineligible}}. Calliopejen1 06:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]The law is that the image would probably qualify as valid fair use. One can only ever say "probably" when it comes to fair use because its legal definition is rather vague, and judgment must be made on a case-by-case basis. But by all the usual tests, this qualifies. (It's a very small portion of the original work, it has no effect on commercial exploitation of the work, it's mainly for educational use, Wikipedia isn't profiting from it themselves, etc.) The Copyright Office has an informative circular on the subject.

However, Wikipedia policy is stricter than the law requires because we also have the goal of the project to consider. The non-free policy is designed to encourage the creation of free media by limiting the use of non-free media under doctrines such as fair use. In particular, where fair use media can be replaced with free media then the fair use media are disallowed. So the answer to your question is that both opinions are correct even though they seem contradictory, which may account for your confusion. In this case, since the same information can be conveyed by simply adding the Unicode Chinese characters, the image isn't usable by policy.

Incidentally, I note that KTo288 left out a character from the Chinese for sarvadharma. It should be 一切法深密義 if I'm not mistaken. I don't know Chinese either, but in this case I was lucky since the radicals are easy to recognize. It would, of course, be wise to ask someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject China to verify.

Calliopejen: No, calligraphy as such is ineligible for copyright under US law. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Uncertain License

I added Image:Zodiac-logo.gif which had transparency where Image:Zodiac-logo.jpg did not. I tried uploading a new version of that file, like I've seen done on other image pages, but I couldn't see how, and so I uploaded it to .gif instead of .jpg. I knew it would come up as untagged, but I couldn't see how to add the same tags that the original image had. So now I am asking here. --Gohst 23:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit the description page for Image:Zodiac-logo.jpg, copy the tag you find there, and paste it into the description page for Image:Zodiac-logo.gif. If you don't want to do that, open the GIF page and add {{PD-ineligible}}.

There are two reasons you had trouble uploading in place. The first is that ".gif" and ".jpg" are parts of the file names. It would be a very bad idea to upload a GIF with an extension that says it's a JPEG. Since the file names are different, one cannot take the place of the other. The second reason is that the JPG actually lives on the Commons and not on the English Wikipedia. If the GIF version is useful, it would be a good idea to move that there too.

Two copyright-unrelated comments: First, a transparent version of this may not be very useful. Since users are able to customize their skins, you can't assume that a set of thin black lines will show up very well when set against a page background. The opaque background of the original guarantees it won't be a problem. Second is that if you're going to convert a JPEG to a format that supports transparency, PNG is preferred on Wikipedia. (Mind you, this image never should have been a JPEG to begin with.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I've been through these sorts of processes before... its not worth the headache. The first comment here was exactly what I did. Including the tag. Also neither the Wkipedia or Commons page had an "upload new version of this file" - at least that I could see. That's why I uploaded it as a .gif. However I couldn't see how to add the relevant tags... So that I didn't do it wrong, I left it blank. Then it got tagged for deletion for being untagged. Ugh. --Gohst 11:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Below the file history on every image page on both Wikipedia and Commons you'll find a link that says "Upload a new version of this file". You won't see it on the Wikipedia page for the .jpg in this case because the file really resides at the Commons, but if you go to its page there you'll see the link.

If a transparent background was your goal you couldn't have used a JPEG anyway; it doesn't support transparency. Both GIF and PNG do. So you had to upload a new file. As I said, it had no business being a JPEG in the first place, but that's hardly your fault.

I see that it is tagged appropriately; what was wanting was source information which I've just added. This kind of thing is what comes of having a bot place these problem/deletion warning tags. We have to use them because so much inappropriate material is uploaded that human beings can't deal with it all, but it sometimes happens that a patently PD image such as this one gets hit. It's nothing you did wrong, really. In the future, you can prevent this kind of thing by saying where you got it from even if it seems trivial or obvious. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

HxSeek

""Thanks for uploading Image:700AD.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images""

I;m afraid I have found the help page regarding copyright quite confusing. Can you please help clarify what i need to do? I have already put the source of the image Hxseek 02:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for {{Attribution}}. However, you're going to need an e-mail as proof that you have permission to use the image. --Boricuaeddie 03:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Boricuaeddie is incorrect. The permission given at the website says, 'You may use the Euratlas images and maps, as they are available on the websites euratlas.com and euratlas.net, for educational or illustration purposes but you must mention the source in that way: "© 2003 Christos Nussli, www euratlas.com". No commercial use is allowed."' Wikipedia cannot accept media with these restrictions. See the text in boldface at the image use policy.

Fair use isn't available either, since maps can always be redrawn, and the non-free media policy doesn't allow fair use when a free equivalent can be made, even in the interim. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

copyright

what do I say or put or do for my copyright on my picture?

Image:Zac Efron In Maui summer of 2007 .jpg looks okay as it is. I assume you actually took this picture, like you said you did? If so, you still own the copyright on the image, but note that the licenses you have chosen basically allow anyone to use or modify your image in any way, as long as they credit you and continue to share the image. If these terms are not acceptable, please drop a line here and let us know so that we can take care of it. Calliopejen1 07:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unknown author

This image is an photo of a UNICEF bus, found on this news article on the same website. I have a hunch that the poster of the news report did not take the photo, as I have seen a few other different photos of the same bus elsewhere online. However, I can't find this exact image anywhere else online, and therefore, not knowing the real author and the image's current copyright status. If anyone could give me some guidance as to where I could find the author, it would be much appreciated. Kind regards, –sebi 09:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone will be able to help you find the author of that image. Wikipedia does require that we know the source of images though, so until the source is found it wouldn't be compliant with our policies. - cohesion 03:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright of PIETA by Michaelangelo

I am interested in finding out, if, I as an artist, can make a copy of the Pieta by engraving in glass and exhibit the art work and offer it for sale in the exhibition. Would there be any infringement of any copyright? If so who has the copy right? What can I do to be able to display and offer for sale my art work?

Vijaykharkar 15:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Vijay Kharkar

This page is for copyright questions related to media hosted at Wikipedia and not for general legal advice on intellectual property rights. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Prove copy right

I am tryin to prove copyright for picture that belong to a group. i am the do the page for them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silentnight23 (talk • contribs).

Please restate your question. Copyright attaches to the individual person or entity that created the image. For more help please clarify your question and give some more background. - cohesion 03:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright?

The picture of the Bulldog logo I want to use for the North Bend High School (Oregon) page is taken from the school website : http://www.nbhs.nbend.k12.or.us . How do I know what the copyright information is?

The bottom of the page states, "All images and stories on this website are Copyright North Bend School District © 2005. Any reproduction of images and/or stories in any form without the expressed written permission of North Bend School District is strictly prohibited. All rights reserved." Assuming this is correct and the image is original this would not be acceptable for use in Wikipedia. If you would like to request permission please see our page on requesting permission. If you have any other questions let us know. - cohesion 03:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Drawings of prominent people in lieu of non-free photos?

Suppose we don't have a free photo of some prominent person, but non-free footage exists all over the place. Would it be clean from a copyright perspective to commission a gifted artist to produce a GFDL drawing of that person? AxelBoldt 21:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• As long as the work is sufficiently different from any existing photos of the person, I can't see why not. Portraiting someone from existing images is done all the time. -Nard 22:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

MySpace content license?

Hi,

Can anybody tell me what license (if any) content posted on MySpace is available under? I can't see anything obvious about it on their site or Wikipedia article, but I may not be able to see the wood for the trees.

Thanks. Blair - Speak to me 05:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

They're owned by the people who posted them. Except for those rare occasional common very typical posts that are themselves copyright infringements. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

image:491.jpg

Could someone please add this as an Album or Single cover for a band, as I forgot when uploading and I cant see the way to do it. If it's deleted I can upload again and add it, but it would be easier to have it tagged first :)

Thanks, Rob

Image:SacredHeart.JPG

can someone help me find, the right liscesce for this image, or a image that is also of the school that will enhance the image, if neither is possible i will locate a digital camera and do it myself.Please inform me on my talk pageBlacksmith2 ^talkEditor Review 09:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an e-mail to the webmasters of the website where you found the image. If they agree to letting us use the image, you may tag it with {{Attribution}}. If they don't let us use the image, I'm afraid the image must be deleted or we must use it under a claim of fair use. --Boricuaeddie 14:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's one approach, although the user's alternate plan was better. To answer his question, the picture is copyright, as all media are unless otherwise licensed. Copyright is probably owned by the company whose website it is, although it might have been provided to them by the school, in which case they own it. We cannot use it here without a free licnese. Contra Boricuaeddie's idea, without that licence it cannot be used under fair use either because it's replaceable with free media. See WP:NONFREE. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

ok so i should take a photo myself, be warned that my camera is OLD and takes forever to upload .Blacksmith2 ^talkEditor Review 06:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I got permission! I will now fix the image. --Boricuaeddie 02:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

fa:Image:Persian wikipedia poster.JPG

I'm the creator of this image. Is there anyway to publish this photo on my user page? (knowing that Fair Use is not allowed in other namespaces). Is this a derivative work? Hessam 17:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a derivative work as it prominently features the Wikipedia logo which is trademark and copyright the Foundation and is not licensed. I don't believe it can be used on your userpage, unfortunately. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

ThankQ! Hessam 23:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with sports image

I would to include Image:FK1.jpg in an article about a well-known play in a specific football game. I found the image on sportsillustrated.cnn.com and I believe it to be fair use since the image is irreplacable. Am I correct? If it is fair use, what do I need to do?

Looks like it to me. Tag it {{non-free fair use in|articlename}} and be sure to add a fair use rationale showing how it conforms to the non-free media policy. And by all means, insert into an article ASAP. Orphaned images can't be valid fair use. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Image uploaded "with permission", but suitable for fair use

Hi, folks. Recently, Wookiesmith (talk · contribs) uploaded Image:Raposo joe.jpg for use in Joe Raposo. When a bot told him that he needed to provide licensing information, he wrote the copyright owner's info in an edit summary, with the following note: "permission granted to include photograph for permanent archival and non-commercial/educational purposes. Contact photo submitter for documentation and det" (presumably cut off because it exceeded the maximum characters in an edit summary). Clearly, this was a good faith attempt to provide licensing info; however, Wookiesmith was apparently unaware that Wikipedia doesn't allow images "with permission". WP:IUP says "Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight." Now, as it so happens, this is an image for which a reasonable fair use rationale can be provided; the subject is deceased, and it would be difficult to obtain a freely licensed image of him. I've written up a rationale, to the best of my (limited) ability. However, I'm unsure whether the "delete on sight" orders apply in a case like this. If Wookiesmith had not mentioned the copyright owner's permission, we could have kept the image with a fair use rationale. Does the mere assertion of "with permission" mean that the image must go, nonetheless? If so, why? (I feel the necessity to remind people that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, despite appearances.) Can we keep this image? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Permission only" images are handled the same way as non-free images, if the image passes the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria we can keep it. Otherwise we would have to delete Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg on sight. Garion96 (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good. I think the Joe Raposo image does pass those criteria now, so it should be fine. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT TAG ON YOUR OWN WORK

I was told that I needed a copyright tag on my own work. I uploaded an image to the WB page and it is my own work. But I am told that I need a Copyright Tag. Please send me the format for doing a copyright tag. thanks Chrismaster1 15:01, August 10 2007

Presumably you mean Image:TheWB...logo.gif. That's not your own work. It's the form of the logo, not whether or not you drew or processed it yourself, that determines copyright status. At best, it's {{non-free logo}}, as long as you can add an adequate non-free media rationale that shows how it conforms to policy. (But if you can justify including the logo, you might as well grab a better copy of it from somewhere.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Logo, or public domain?

Could you guys take a look at Image:MontananRailroad.jpg? It's a corporate logo from a small railroad that existed from 1895 to 1908, cropped from a scan of an 1899 railroad map. I uploaded it as a logo with the appropriate Fair use tag, but believe that it might qualify as a free use image because of the date of the map and because the entity ceased to exist prior to 1923. Thanks! Pitamakan 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You might have spelled the name of the railroad correctly in your second post, but you misspelled it as above when you uploaded the image, so here we are.

Yes, a design that old is PD. You can tag it {{PD-US}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And clearly, this is one of those days when I shouldn't even be trying to type.  :) As for the mistyped name, any preference on if should I re-upload with the correct name, or just leave as-is? I assume an admin can't simply rename the thing. Pitamakan 23:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not directly. First re-upload it under the correct name, and then tag the original {{redundant|Image:MontananRailroad.jpg}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks! Pitamakan 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Which tag to use

The Danish Socialist People's Party has adopted a new logo. I have therefore replaced the old logo with the new one: Image:Sflogo.JPG. The new logo would qualify as fair use just as well as the old did but the party has allowed further uses of the logo. The party's website (http://www.sf.dk/index.php?menu=687) says in Danish that:

"SFs logoer kan frit downloades og bruges i forbindelse med tryk af SF-materialer, etablering af websites eller til brug for mødeindkaldelser, artikler om SF og lignende."

Which in English transletes into:

"The logos of SF can be downloaded and used freely in connection with printing of SF material, establishment of websites or for the use of calls for meetings, articles concerning SF, etc."

Which tag should the image of the new logo have?--Regicollis 09:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I would still use the normal {{non-free logo}} tag, and just note in the description the terms that the company specifies for permitted use. Since modification of the logo is not explicitly allowed, this image is not free enough in the wikipedia sense to deemed a totally free image. Calliopejen1 10:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Russian naval captain

Hey, is it possible to upload this image from this page to wikipedia, and if so what tag should I use? The image is of Soviet Submariner Nikolai Vladimirovich Zateyev for his article. SGGH ^speak! 12:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Soviet copyright law at the time was in a transitional state, so I can't say for sure that this is PD even though it might be. (We also don't know the author, which makes a difference.) However, since this person is dead and no free image can be made of him, use is acceptable under Wikipedia's non-free media policy. Tag it {{non-free fair use in|Nikolai Vladimirovich Zateyev}} and be sure to include a valid non-free media rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of images from old books

I would like to upload an image of Embleton Tower scanned from "The Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton" by Louise Creighton (1850-1936) published by Longmans (London) in 1904. Is such an image still covered by copyright? If not, which category of license do I specify when uploading the image.

--Cffk 13:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

An image published before 1909 outside the United States is no longer copyrighted, nor is an image whose author died over 70 years ago. You can use the tag {{PD-US}} and {{PD-old-70}} on the image page to cover both cases. Calliopejen1 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Asics.svg

Could someone please lower the resolution of this image for fair use qualification? I don't have the nessecary tools on my computer to create a .svg image. Thanks! — Moe ε 21:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Soviet-era images

An aggressive German admin type is determined to remove my uploaded Soviet-era photo image because it has no licence. Soviet-era publications are not copyrighted and no licence is required, but Wiki insists that some type of licence for old Soviet images must be selected from the drop-list. (Yet a soviet tag is offered in the how-to section) How do we upload these free images if there's no licence option (such as the US Government free licence)? BomberJoe 02:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've checked your upload log and there are no deleted images. In fact, you have only uploaded one image, and it doesn't seem to match the above description. Am I missing something? -- But|seriously|folks  03:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Moon_Demo_Tape.JPG and Image:The_Smashing_Pumpkins_Demo_Tape.JPG

i was told that i need to confirm that these images are copyrighted, or some such. i found them on a smashing pumpkins fan site, the moon cover can be found at http://spfreaks.com/?page=COLLDETAILS&item=506 and Teh Smashing Pumpkins cover can be found at http://spfreaks.com/?page=COLLDETAILS&item=505

please let me know if this helps IDISLIKEcaugette 04:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Uploading a chapter of a book now out of publication?

I would like to upload a chapter of a book which was written by my grandfather. He died 20 years ago but is survived by his wife who is happy for the text to be uploaded. The book was published by Max Reinhardt in 1953. It has no mention of a copyright and from what I can see the publisher no longer exists. Nor can I find any mention of another publisher taking over the business from Max Reinhardt. If there is no copyright notice printed in the book can this article be legitimately uploaded and if so how do I go about it?

Where was the book published? If a work was published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice, it is in the public domain. ( See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Published works.) However, there would need to be proof to that effect. I don't really have any expertise in this, so hopefully others will chime in, but it seems like the original book, which doesn't contain a copyright notice, would suffice?

If the work is not in the public domain, whether you can put it on wikipedia depends on whether your grandfather sold the copyright to the book to the publisher. If your grandfather sold the copyright, it is irrelevant the that publisher is out of business. (I'm not sure what practices were in 1953, but I would guess that your grandfather sold the copyright to the publisher.) If your grandfather did not sell the copyright, however, his heir (who inherited the copyright) could release the work under the GDFL, the free license used by wikipedia, or into the public domain. The executor of your grandfather's estate would probably be the one to ask about whether your grandfather kept the copyright, and (if so) who owns it now. If someone in your family is able to release the work under a free license, you probably send an email confirming this to permissions@wikimedia.org. Calliopejen1 15:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding images from the Victoria and Albert Museum

Hello! I am a member of the Web Team at the Victoria and Albert Museum. It is our intention to contribute further content and images to existing Wikipedia articles. I would like to start adding images to relevant articles but I'm not sure what to put regarding copyright when adding an image. I have been given full permission and backing from the Mark Jones, Director of the Museum. Any advice? VAwebteam 10:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for considering doing this! I know from my work on Wikipedia's fashion articles that the V&A website has a lot of content that would be extremely useful here. For images to be placed on Wikipedia, they must be released under a free license. You can check here for a list of acceptable licenses. In short, any image used on Wikipedia must be able to be used and modified by anyone, in any way--even commercially. (There are certain exceptional cases where nonfree images are acceptable--see WP:NONFREE for more information--but if any photo you are uploading is a photo of something on display in your museum, it is not likely to meet the guidelines.) If you are willing to release your images under such a license, you can either have an email sent from an official V&A email address to permissions@wikimedia.org specifying images and the license, or you can place a notice on your own website saying the same thing. As you do this, you should place the image copyright tag you have chosen (again, from this list) on the image description page of the picture you have uploaded. If the museum is concerned about maintaining rights to sales of image reproductions, it is possible to release low-resolution images under a free license while maintaining full rights to high-resolution images. If you have any other questions, please let us know. Calliopejen1 15:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

how do I download the DLL onto my computer and save in my windows/system directory?

I keep getting an error when I start my computer that says "cannot find import; DLL may be missing, corrupt, or wrong version File "dbghelp.dll", error 1157

I read where this problem can be solved by downloading the DLL. So, how do I download the DLL onto my computer and save it in my windows/system directory?

Thanks,

Ken

This page is for copyright questions related to Wikipedia media content, not general computer help questions. There are numerous online forums that can help you with problems of this nature. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Mr. Wonderful" Paul Orndorff

Hello,

I was wondering could I use this image for MR. Wonderful's Profile page

The Image

I also did a screen shot of a current picture of him. It was at the WWE Hall of Fame Ceremony and it was deleted. Could you tell me what to do on that subject.

Zlrussell 12:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the image? --Boricuaeddie 14:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This kind of image is always going to be copyrighted, and since he's a living person it will be difficult to justify an image of him as fair use merely to show what he looks like. It can probably be used as fair use to illustrate a section on his "Mr. Wonderful" stage persona, though. In that case tag it {{non-free fair use in|Paul Orndorff}} and be sure to add a valid non-free media rationale showing how it conforms to the non-free media policy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My photo?

Hi, my nickname's neweco. I has just uploaded image Image:BepVietDaoHoaNu.jpg, but the computer said it has wrong copyright tag. I'm new member and I really don't understand what's the matter. Please explain it for me. Thank you very much. Neweco

You have to include a copyright tag in the image description page for it to be included in Wikipedia. --Boricuaeddie 14:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what it says is that there's no copyright tag at all. You need to select one with the correct licensing. Vietnam is party to the Berne Convention at this point, so creative works are automatically copyrighted as soon as they're created, I see no indication on the source page that any free license is granted. (Admittedly, I do not read Vietnamese.) So we can only use this as non-free media, and it can only be kept on Wikipedia if it meets the criteria.

If you took the photo yourself and the source website is just using it with your permission, then you can decide among a number of free licenses. See your options. In that case, a higher resolution version of the image would be greatly appreciated. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's taken by photographer Đào Hoa Nữ and I search it from Internet. Does that mean I have to contact her for a permission? And then, what should I do?

Thanks. Neweco

How many fair use images are too many for a featured article?

I'm working on getting Fun Home up to FA standard. The section Fun Home#Artistic process describes how the author used photographs of herself for reference for each panel. There's an interview in The Comics Journal which I've used elsewhere in the article and which contains a sample of the photographs, along with the panels drawn from them. I'd like to get one of these samples scanned, to accompany the "artistic process" section. I think that would fulfill Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8; that is, it would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." However, I'm concerned that adding another fair use image to the article would be one too many (the article already has the cover of the book, one representative panel and the cover of the French edition). What are the standards for how many fair use images a featured article on a work like this should have?

I don't have a scanner, so getting the image scanned would take some labor and (minimal) expense (that is, I'll have to go to Kinko's or somewhere to pay to get it scanned). If the image isn't going to be acceptable for use in the article, I'd rather not go to that trouble. But I do think that it would be a worthwhile addition to the article's educational content. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

From a quick read at the article it seems worthwhile. Besides, if the image you want to scan also has a panel, you can perhaps remove the other panel in the article and the french edition cover. (I don't think that image is really needed). Garion96 (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose not. (I had added it because the book had been so well received in France, but I suppose that the mere cover doesn't add much to the article.) I'll try to get to Kinko's in the next day or two, then. Thanks for replying. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've scanned and uploaded the relevant image (Image:Fun Home photoreference.jpg) and included it in the article. Can someone go over the licensing, fair use rationale, etc. to make sure I've got everything right? (I wasn't sure whether I needed a separate licensing template for the photo part, and if so, what template would be most appropriate.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone give this a glance, please? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Really, any opinion would be helpful. Would I be more likely to get a response if I posted a new comment at the bottom of the page? Is anyone even reading this now? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me. -- But|seriously|folks  20:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. My best guess would be to improve the article as much as possible, submit it as an FA candidate (or maybe GA, if you wish), and see what kind of response you get there. John Carter 20:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What to do about mis-licensed images?

I was told on the Village Pump to come and ask here. User:Mastercaster has been uploading a bunch of endcaps from ITV companies of the seventies, each of them with the edit summary "I made this file myself." and licensing them all as GFDL with "I, the copyright holder of this work..." Now, perhaps Mastercaster is somehow authorised by ITV plc, but if so zie hasn't given any indication, and I suspect that these are actually labelled with the wrong licence. There's an argument to be made that they're free use, and so I don't want to list them for deletion; what's the proper way to request a review of the licensing terms of an image? (Also note that Mastercaster uploaded Image:Border 1.JPG over the top of an existing image so that it incongruously appears here. Note that I know the correct licensing would be as a fair use screenshot, but is it okay just to go in there and change it myself? The Wednesday Island 23:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Three of the 4 images are tagged for deletion currently. You are correct screenshots cannot be re-licensed by the person who captured the image. I have also left a note on his/her talk page explaining about replacing already existing images. The image you mentioned as being replaced has been reverted. It was unfortunately a Microsoft/NAVTEQ map tagged as gfdl previously however and has also been marked as having an unacceptable license. If you feel that any of these images satisfy the non-free content criteria it is ok for you to re-tag them as you mentioned. - cohesion 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

keith.jpg

I thought I had tagged Image:keith.jpg as public domain. I guess I don't understand how to do it.Arel Lucas 03:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone came along afterward and tagged it for a dual license. If that's not what you want, you can change it. Edit the image page and substitute for {{Multilicensefromownerviewed}} one of the tags listed at WP:ICT#For image creators. Or just leave it as it is if you're happy with the dual license. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

how do i get a picture that i want on my user page?

when i go to insert a picture on my user page it comes up with an example picture. How do i make that one of my pictures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digicam (talk • contribs)

First, please sign your posts by typing 4 tildes ~~~~ at the end so we know who we're talking to. Second, you need to use the name of the uploaded image instead of the example image from extended image syntax documentation. I can help you out with that if you like, so post to my talk page and let me know what image you want to put there, and I'll see what I can do. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:AdultSwim.svg

It's just the phrase "[adult swim]" in a non-decorative font. Is that actually eligible for copyright, or should it be moved to Commons and tagged with {{PD-ineligible}} and {{trademark}}? 17Drew 09:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The latter. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding Information

How do I add my trademark licence to my logo on wikipedia

50 Cent image

Is the image currently being used in the infobox of 50 Cent permitted to be used in that context or not? John Carter 14:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unambiguously. It is freely licensed (in this case, under the CC-attribution 2.0 license). --Yamla 14:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

photo copyright

Hello:

Please notify me on my talk page of the answer.

I just tried to upload a photo from my own computer, that I had taken.

I was asked for the copyright info, but I've never copyrighted anything in my life.

I would like to add a copyright tag, but I can't figure out which one to use. Can you please help?

I don't really mind if it becomes part of the public domain, but I'd prefer to not allow anyone else to you it.

I truly just want to attest to the fact that it's mine, and that I have all rights to it.

What do you suggest? Thanks.

Rick Dronsky MosaicRick 15:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you insist on retaining all rights, we cannot use the photo. It needs to be released under a free license. You do have a few choices though, and the photo need not enter the public domain. See the list of copyright tags available to image creators. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you the photographer? If you are not the creator -- for example, if this was shot by a professional photographer in a studio -- then the photographer owns the copyright, not you. --Clubjuggle 06:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

He said he was the photographer in his question. That what "that I had taken" means. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of historical image?

I have personally scanned an image dating from ~1928 image: Fultograph print.jpg which is intended to show the quality of an image transmitted by the Fultograph process. The picture of the church man is irrelevant; the point is to show how images came through the system. The Fultograph system operated for about a year in the late 1920s so there are very, very few surviving images.

Can I upload this as a public domain image? I'm happy to release my copyright of the scan under the widest-possible free use licence.

G1MFG 16:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)G1MFG

Give it a "Fair use" tag for now to prevent it being deleted. Did someone take this picture and then transmit it? If so, and it was taken in Britain by a Britishman in 1928 I think it would be Public Domain, but for some strange reason we don't have a PD-UK tag! 68.39.174.238 22:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If the photo originated in the UK and is anonymous, then you can tag it {{PD-old-70}} since for anonymous works copyright subsists for 70 years after date of publication. If the photographer is known, then it's most likely fair use since duration is author's life+70 years. The photographer would have had to be dead by 1936 for this to be PD. If so then it's fair use, but due to its rarity it should be easily justifiable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

School Building Photograph Image:school photo.gif

I took this photo for the school's website back in 2001, and I'm trying to use it for its wikipedia entry too. I don't care how this image is used, there is no copyright, the school hasn't copyrighted it, and I would love it if someone knew how to tag this image properly would just do it for me so we don't have to keep on going through these deletion warnings! It's absolutely fair use. Daseincog

You can't use fair use on Wikipedia for images of existing buildings. If you took the picture yourself, you should tag it with one of the user-created tags: Wp:Image_tags#For_image_creators. You should also explain that although it was used on the school website before it was uploaded here, you are the actual photographer so you have the right to it. I'm assuming you did not take the image in the course of any employment with the school, because that could make it a work for hire and the school could therefore hold the copyright. -- But|seriously|folks  22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A Peruvian stamp

WRT Image:Ancon estampa 2.jpg, from 1925, does anyone know what the copyright lay of Peru is? Would that still be copyright? Was it ever copyrighted? 68.39.174.238 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Under Peruvian copyright law there is provision that the texts of legislative, administrative, and judicial documents are ineligible for copyright, but since it says nothing about other kinds of works they must be eligible. However, for collective or anonymous works copyright lasts for 70 years after "disclosure". So assuming the stamp is from 1925 and not merely the event being commemorated, it entered PD on 1 January 1996. {{PD-old-70}} should work, unless someone wants to create {{PD-Peru}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Translation

I'd like to translate to Polish fragments from the Alfred Korzybski bio, ie. the anecdote (with biscuits). How should I proceed regarding copyrights?

Kinar 23:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, I think this place is for images, not article content, but I'll answer your question anyway. If it's from a Wikipedia in another language or any Wikipedia you may use it freely. If you're talking about translating material from another website, then you must do it in your own words, as translating it word by word is copyright infringement. --Boricuaeddie 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean this bit, I take it. The citations are Dutch sources, so assuming it isn't a close translation of the original (which would make it a possible copyright infringement) then it's licensed under the GFDL just like any other Wikipedia content and can be translated to another Wikipedia as long as they use the same license and attribute it properly. However, on the off-chance it might be a close translation, you might want to either make the Polish a bit loose, or base it on the same account from the Dutch Wikipedia which tells the story in a briefer fashion. (It's the paragraph beginning, "Naar een anekdote gaf Korzybski op een dag les aan een groep studenten die hij onderbrak....") TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, guys.

Logo for a video game

Does this logo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ragnarok_Online_Official_Logo.PNG , include everything necessary? I received a message saying I needed a copyright tag for this image. -- chibioj

Image:Aggie Bonfire.jpg

I'd like to use this image to illustrate the size of the Aggie Bonfire. I have seen this picture at over a dozen websites. The Fair Use Rationale has been given and, I believe, satisfies the use of the photo. How do I annotate this? — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Northsquare.jpg

Uploaded this screenshot I took of the title sequence from the UK Drama North Square for use in the infobox of the article I have created today. I originally uploaded an image which was just under twice the size of the one now displayed and was left a note on my user page asking me for explanation of my rational behind my fair use claim. Not sure what to put beyond what I have already, but don't feel confident enough that that it is sufficient to remove the tags; I'm no expert on copyright but it seems to fit the fair use bill and I've seen similar images with this level of explination elsewhere.

Any judgements from elder hands at this kind of thing would be appreciated. Earl CG 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done. I have added a fair use rationale and removed the template. For future reference, please see WP:NFC. --Boricuaeddie 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

CAN I GET SOME HELP ON THIS ONE?

I responded to a question, which asked, " give your interpretation between two words" and the answer in which I gave was absolutely awesome. I would like to copyright this interpretation as quoted..... What must I do to make this happen?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Profgore (talk • contribs).

PLEASE HELP..........IT'S AWESOME!! I REFERENCED THIS QUOTE.......

All text in Wikipedia is released under the GFDL, so you cannot claim copyright ownership for any of your work. Sorry. --Boricuaeddie 01:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes he can. Or rather, yes it is because all creative work is copyrighted as soon as it's set down in fixed form. The GFDL doesn't change that. It's a grant of rights; it doesn't take away any rights that belong to the author. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Has this image been used incorrectly

The image "Image:Royalshow2007.gif" has been uploaded by "User:Robfisher21". To me, it looks the same as a photo on the last listed reference on the "Royal Show" page. I worked on the page before I realised this. What is the copyright status of this image? Snowman 14:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Image has been tagged as possibly non-free, thanks for pointing this out. - cohesion 23:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

what's the license on this one?

There is a set of images such as Image:Rafbat.jpg that are apparently from a USGS website. The website has credits that don't make it clear to me who might own the lions share of the images. Any ideas?

You should probably contact the webmaster to find out. The credits may have been omitted inadvertently, or be taken from one of the sources listed in the bibliography on the Credits page. So we can't assume they're {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE}}, but if they are it would be nice to know about it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I contacted said webmaster. Before when I asked what to do about USG servers with uncredited images (on this page) I was told to pui the image (in part because I'm going over a user's contributions who was a little less than through with the declarations of PD) do you want to revisit that advice? Pdbailey 02:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not as deletionist as the last person you asked. Absent other information, it's not an unreasonable notion an uncredited image found on a US government web server is a work of the US government, so I see no need to rush off and delete it. But it's clearly preferable to find out for sure in cases such as this one where it's uncertain. If we had a USGS source we could be less so, but I don't know that the USACE is in the habit of photographing wildlife. Or maybe they are; they must do EIRs every so often. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what labels have to do with anything. The question to me is, is Wikipedia's policy to assume that you can put your hand in the cookie jar until someone slaps it out, or that you have to ask permission first. I don't know: where is the burden of proof? Pdbailey 22:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on the specifics. Ideally we make sure of free licenses before we upload, but I think we both know how often that's done in practice. Given that reality, my opinion as someone who answers questions here fairly often is that where we encounter an existing image where the license is uncertain, but on balance is more likely to be free than not, then we need to make as certain of it as we can but there's no need to rush off and tag it for deletion in the meantime. (I feel the balance is more toward free than non-free here. We have a set of images on a US government site where some are credited and others are not. This suggests, but does not prove, that no credits are applicable in the latter cases.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

random other question

Hi. I just now see that the picture I uploaded for Dublin Gospel Choir page was deleted. I am the author of this picture and I would like it to come back on the page. How do I go about it? (i don't even know which picture that was, as it was long time ago, so if you could undelete this particular one I would be grateful). MagDee - boska@mensa.org.pl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magdee (talk • contribs)

The image was Image:DGC at Electric Picnic 2006.jpg. You can see why it was deleted at the log. It apparently was missing either a copyright tag, source information, or both. In other words, you needed to say that you took the picture yourself, and add a tag like {{GFDL-self}} to give Wikipedia license to use it. I'm not an admin, but you might try contacting one directly and see if he can undelete it to give you a chance to fix it. (Although I frankly don't know if deletions so old can be undone. You may just need to re-upload it.)

I guess you hadn't looked in on your account for a while? There was a message posted to your user talk page about it at the time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Question re: image source

I need to know how to tag Image:Mukherji.jpg. I haven't heard back from the Savitri Devi archivist so I do not know the copyright status.

thanks

curtsurly 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't have enough information to determine that it's PD at this point. We'd need to know if it was previously published, when, and when the photographer died. (The photo being >70 years old has nothing to to with fair use.) The current tag is OK, but you need to add a valid fair use rationale. This is generally not difficult in the case of a deceased person. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

uploading a picture of Tom Lodge

I have uploaded a picture of Tom Lodge for his web site, which I own and have full copyright of and wish to make it totally available to the public domain. But the program is still asking for a tag even though I gave all this information on the tag. And it still has not appeared on the section for Tom Lodge. So what should I do now? Tom7919 19:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You have it appropriately tagged, as we can see on the image page: Image:Tom Lodge 1966 - 2004.jpg. What you're seeing in the article is a placeholder that an editor inserted to prompt someone to submit an image, as you did. The markup to display the image still needs to be inserted into the article. We do this using Wikipedia's extended image syntax. I'll take care of it for you. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Satellite Images from Google Maps

Free use? SJS1971 20:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Garion96 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Any fed govt source of satellite images? SJS1971 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Had to look it up. Yes, there is NASA World Wind, similar to google earth. But not all images created are free content I think, see Commons:World Wind and the Wikipedia article NASA World Wind. Garion96 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for going to the trouble to find those links. I may very well make use of it when I have the time to download WorldWind. Much obliged. SJS1971 00:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There's also the images from http://terraserver.microsoft.com which are all {{PD-USGov-USGS}}. They're high-resolution only for certain urban areas though, and only cover the Lower 48. (There are a few locations in Alaska with photo coverage, and a few places elsewhere without. Everyplace in the US with no photos at least has a topo map. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that too. SJS1971 18:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

why is this being set to be deleted ive put up all the information Image:Sanglyph.jpg.

the picture i uploaded set as a screenshot for a video game(Tomb raider Angel of darkness still has his at the bottom of its page This image or media is claimed to be used under Wikipedia's policy for non-free content but has no explanation as to why it is permitted under the policy. Image:Sanglyph.jpg. --Shane 'Joxer' Nolan 22:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Joxernolan

 Done. I've added a fair use rationale and removed the deletion template. In the future, please remember that all fair use images must include a non-free media rationale showing how it conforms to the non-free media policy. --Boricuaeddie 22:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Uploading Images From Company Database

Hi, I'm updating an entry named "DongA Ilbo" for the company itself.( I am an intern there) For the purpose of this project I have been given permission to use any images in the company's database. I have logos and other photographs that would suit the entry but I don't know how to license these properly, as I have tried and been immediately deleted.

--> I summarized basically the same points as I have here and put it under "permission for Wiki only"

To recap:

• I am working for DongA Ilbo
  
• The company thus has given me permission to use any and all images available on its database
  (not online: more like intranet)
  
• How should I license these images?
  
  

Your swift reply will be greatly appreciated. Kimsungsoo 01:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer is, "it depends." Wikipedia operates under the GNU Free Documentation License, which means others can copy and use its content freely, so long as they follow the terms of the license.

Generally speaking, content uploaded to Wikipedia should be either be released into the public domain or under a compatible free license whenever possible. Of course, this means the image will not be restricted just to Wikipedia. The other option is fair use content, but that restricts the kind of images you can use. Follow the link for more details. --Clubjuggle 02:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You should also review WP:COI. -- But|seriously|folks  02:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear here: Kimsungsoo should absolutely not upload images under a "Wikipedia only" license. We do not accept media with that license. The option is available for it in the licensing dropbox on the upload page, but that just tags it for automatic deletion. We must have a free license, or else it can only be used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free image policy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Schematic

It's an amplifier schematic from a company (Hilgen)that went out of business in the late 1960's and there was no successor company. What license does this material fall under?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Defaulttheunremarkable (talk • contribs)

That depends on a lot of things. A schematic may be copyrighted. [4]. However, if this is a standard kind of amplifier where the schematic is very similar to one of the hundreds that are available in the public domain, then it will be ineligible for copyright as being insufficiently original. Furthermore, if it was published before 1964 and the copyright wasn't renewed, then it has fallen into the public domain. Otherwise, subsequent changes in the law automatically granted extensions on existing copyrights from 1964 on, and these will not fall into the public domain until 2059 at the earliest. Finally, since it was published before 1976, if it carries no copyright notice, then it's in the public domain.

Now aren't you glad you asked?

If it does happen to be copyrighted, you should note that the design itself is ineligible for copyright. So if you need to illustrate this particular circuit, you can draw a schematic for it yourself, and as long as it was not identical to the original, it's your work and you can license it using any free license you want. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Indicating own work

Image:ouse1.jpg. Could someone kindly explain (or do it for me!) how to indicate that the above image is my own. It comes from my web site www.horstedkeynes.com/ousevalley.html which is also mine (and which is registered in my name if that helps).

Sorry, following lists that are simple to you throws me!

I should also like to put the words about the image on the page Ouse Valley Railway into one of those blue frames but can't see how to do it. perhaps the image is too large to do this?

Rob.

To judge from the tag you tried to add, you wanted to release it to the public domain, so I fixed it that way for you. Please let me know if you wanted something else. But maybe with an example there you'll find it easier to do yourself. You should add a link to the image on the website, and a note explaining that it's your personal domain.

To insert the image into the article, see the tutorial on Wikipedia's extended image syntax. Briefly, find the place in the text around where you want the image to appear and insert:

[[Image:ouse1.jpg|thumb|right|200px|caption text]]

Substitute "left" for "right" if you want it on the other side of the page. The number before the "px" is the width in pixels; adjust that up or down as you prefer. Substitute a suitable caption for "caption text". Don't worry too much about precise image placement, since that's going to vary depending on the reader's window width, screen resolution, browser font configuration, etc. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add a Latin phrase which is not listed on Wikipedia's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28full%29

Latin phrase is Luceat Lux Vestra "Let Your Light Shine" Motto of Saint Patricks College , Strathfield NSW, Australia

How do add to a Stub on above page?

This page is for questions related to copyrights of media uploaded to Wikipedia's servers. For general help on Wikipedia, see Help:Contents. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My own photo.

I recently uploaded a photo, by the name of BigBen.jpg. I TOOK THIS PICTURE WITH MY OWN CAMERA, but it asks my to add a Copywrite tag. Any information on this?

Airbus A350 15:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

When you create a photograph, you own copyright to it automatically. If you wish to release the image into the public domain, you can tag the image with {{Template:pd-user}}. If you wish to retain copyright but allow use under a free license, you can assign it a tag for a free license, such as {{Template:GFDL-self}}. --Clubjuggle 16:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to be overly technical, but if you create a photograph in the course of your employment, the photograph may be a "work for hire", in which case copyright would belong to your employer. I'm not saying that's what's going on here, but, without qualification, someone might misapply the general principle espoused above. -- But|seriously|folks  19:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

coppy right tags??? aww help

i keep forgeting to add the copy right stuff and i got a bunch of images that are not copyrighted blah blah blah tells me to add some tags but i can't seem to figure out what these tags are and i have no idea what any of the licences mean and yes the photos in question are shot by me...

one incredibly lost/confussed noob...... 1ajs

A tag is a kind of template that you add to the image page to let everyone know the terms under which you're making your copyrighted work available. (If you made it, it's copyright to you. You don't have to do anything to get a copyright; it's there automatically.) If you're submitting your own, we need it to be a free license. Which one you choose depends on the conditions you want to impose; since it's your work it's up to you. So here are some choices:

• If all you want to do is to release it to the public domain, add {{PD-self}}.
• If you want to release it under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which forces everyone who uses your work to retain your name, identify themselves if they make any changes to it, and release any changed versions under the same license, add {{GFDL-self}}.
• If you want to use one of the Creative Commons licenses that are allowable here, add {{cc-by-2.5|yourname}} or {{cc-by-sa-2.5|yourname}}. The first one makes users of your work credit you for the original; the second one does the same and makes them release new versions under the same license.

So pick one and add it to the image pages along with a note saying where you got the images from (you photographed them, drew them, whatever.) If you have already put them up online somewhere, link to it and add a note that you were the uploader at the other site too. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you for the help cheers 1ajs

A photo of Jon Heder

http://www.freewebs.com/unofficialjonheder/capt.jpg

This photo is from jonheder.org, i've sent an email to <undulatingcacti@yahoo.com>, the owner of the website i guess, so can anyone help me to find it out or post it? i mean, i'm still a newbie here and everything seems unfamiliar to me. Thanks!

Winnie

The source looks like a fansite, so it's unlikely that undulatingcacti holds the copyright to the image. A commonly used site is Flickr, where you can probably find a picture that a user took and FlickrMail him or her to see if he or she will release it under a free license. For help on what to ask for when obtaining free pictures, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. 17Drew 06:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, thank you very much for working towards securing free content! Second, due to an often ambiguous statement of consent (such as "Wikipedia is free to reuse this photograph"), I (and, I think, other editors) regularly recommend that editors use this standard declaration of consent when contacting potential copyright holders. Third, when you have used this or a similar declaration of consent, please forward your correspondence (with your request, the webmaster's reply, and any further related messages) to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org Again, thank you, and feel free to post any further questions to this page or to to my talk page! Cheers, Iamunknown 06:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for answering my question! You both are so nice!

Hi Drew, thanks for mentioning the website! i actually found a great photo there, this, http://farm1.static.flickr.com/4/4977483_ad65fc6ff9_m.jpg I've already sent an email to that owner "JenSchrauben", am i doing a right thing? honestly i got confused reading Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, i mean, my english is really poor, can you please show me the next step? Thanks!

Hi lamunknown, oh thanks for your advice! although i still don't really understand how it works (for heaven's sake it's soooo complicated!), i will ask you for opinion if i have questions, it's just um, i don't know how to post questions in the "User talk"... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winniee852 (talk • contribs) 10:02:16, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

What constitutes "Fair Use" of media files

How do I know that I can use protected material without breaking the law? I noticed Wikipedia is featuring exerpts of songs in the "Backmasking" article. Has written permission been granted in these instances or does "Fair Use" apply?--Logognosis 18:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFC is a good place to start to get an understanding of Wikipedia's nonfree content (a/k/a "fair use") guidelines. And yes, the backmasking clips are used under the NFC. -- But|seriously|folks  19:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Would this be a fair use?

I'd like to upload an image from a newspaper's website which depicts Cristina Lopez (athlete) running the 20k race walk in the XV Pan-American Games of Rio de Janeiro (July 22, 2007), which she won, making history by winning the first ever in those games for El Salvador. The image I'd like to use is a low resolution you can see here [5], a link a the bottom of the page Aviso Legal or Legal Notice states the following:
"All material contained in this site (text, logotypes, content, illustrations and photographs) is protected by the Copyright laws and its use should be for educational and informative purposes only, provided clarification is given in a visible place that the rights are property of elsalvador.com. Any other use like reproduction, edition, diffusion, distribution o copy by any means without previous authorization or consent by elsalvador.com and the copyright holder is prohibited. Applicable laws will be enforced against any person or institution violating this rights.

As for the question: Could the use of that image constitute fair use?

--Cuzcatlan 23:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Short answer

No.

Long answer

Hello Cuzcatlan! Thanks for asking your question here. The non-free content policy is considered a bit stricter than the four criteria used to determine whether a particular use is a "fair use." In my opinion, the relevant "non-free content criterion" is the eighth criterion: Significance. The current wording, which is accepted to some degree, is:

"Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function."

It would also be relevant to draw similarities between this and other similar images. It seems that this image would be used to illustrate a notable event in a person's career. Be advised that many images used, as this image would be used, to illustrate a notable event in a person's career, have been deleted.

Note also that the use of non-free images in short biographical articles is generally not accepted. The use of these images is considered to be used (in part) for the purposes of identifying the individual. Such images are replaceable (except in rare cases, such as J. D. Salinger, who is very reclusive, and has not had a formal interview since 1980), which means that they could be replaced, even if not immediately.

If you have gotten this far, I hope that this longer explanation clears things up! I should note that others may disagree with my conclusion, but it is true both (1) that many images, which were used in ways similar to how this image would be used, have been deleted and (2) that the current application of the non-free use criteria places emphasis on the significance of non-free content. If you have any further questions, feel free to reply here or to ask me on my talk page. Cheers, Iamunknown 06:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:NedSublette.jpg Fair use

Doesn't the image illustrate the topic in question? What free image could replace it? What image could illustrate the topic in question? Hyacinth 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as someone is alive, a free image of that person can be obtained. Also, a nonfree image of a composer cannot be used to illustrate an article on a composition, as it does not enhance the reader's understanding of the composition, so it is merely decoration. I have removed the image from the article. -- But|seriously|folks  23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How may a free image be obtained? Hyacinth 06:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

By taking a picture of him and releasing it under a free license or if someone who has taken a picture of him agrees to release it under a free license. 17Drew 06:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sean43 - your request concerning copyright "La cala" dipinto di Giovanni Mascellaro

I am the author of this painting.

I sent you a photo of this painting which I have at home together with other pictures of mine.

Here are my details:

Giovanni Mascellaro

born in Palermo on January 15, 1943.

I am an Italian artist (singer, musician, poet and painter).

I started his career at only 16 by winning an important musical competion at Mondello (Palermo) named the "Capannina d'oro" as a song sing writer.

Graduate of Economics at Palermo University, I have worked for over 30 years as a bank Officer and, aged 44, I achieved the position of deputy general manager of an important bank in Sicily.

As a marketing expert I published in 1976 "Il marketing nell'azienda bancaria", traceable at the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale in Florence.

I am also a well known astrologer (Member of American Federation of Astrologers) and a connoisseur of esoterism.

links:http://www.spock.com/Giovanni-Mascellaro

     http://www.bloggers.it/Sean/index.cfm

     http://www.aphorism.it/giovanni_mascellaro/

     http://www.poetare.it/mascellarogn.html

I would be only too pleased if I could appear also in Wikipedia.

I am also a contributor to Wikimapia (see "Palermo", "Mount Pellegrino", "The Little House Chinese-style" which I illustrated in English)

I am also a contributor to Panoramio with over 100 photos of all parts of the world.

For your ready reference please contact me at the following e-mail address:

giovannimascellaro@tin.it

Looking forward to your early reply,

I am

Yours sincerely

Giovanni Mascellaro

Palermo, August 17th, 2007 timed at 21:28 (Rome time)

Hello, Giovanni, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! I see that the image you are referring to is Image:Palermo-La Cala.jpg. If you painted the image, and did not transfer any of the copyrights to an employer, then you are the copyright holder.

Note that, in general, images uploaded to Wikipedia by an editor must be freely licensed. To indicate under which free license you license this image, you should add a "tag", or specialized template, to the "image description page" (click the following link: Image:Palermo-La Cala.jpg).

Before you decide to freely license the reproduction of your painting, you must realize that a "free license" means that anyone can use the reproduction of your painting for any purpose, whether commercially or non-commercial, or whether in a modified or unmodified form. There are limitations on the use an image which are unrelated to copyright, and freely licensing an image does not effect these limitations or your rights that are associated with these limitations.

To freely license the image, you should add a "free license tag" to it. A list can be found at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. I would recommend either {{PD-self}}, {{GFDL-self}} or {{self|cc-by-2.5}}. To add one of these tags, simply type the two braces, followed by the text, and then the two final braces.

I would recommend that, before you do so, you read the text of the licenses, or at least the templates. The text of the templates are available at {{PD-self}}, {{GFDL-self}}, and {{Cc-by-2.5}}. The text of the licenses are at Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License and Creative Commons Attribution 2.5. The "public domain" is not necessarily a license, but it is considered "free"; more information (which is not a legally-binding license) can be found at Wikipedia:Public domain.

Again, thank you, and I hope that my post is not too long or confusing. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here or at my talk page! Cheers, Iamunknown 06:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In order to avoid scaring you off, I should point out that licensing the Image:Palermo-La Cala.jpg bitmap image under the GFDL does not affect your exclusive copyright over the painting itself and any other higher-resolution bitmaps of the same painting, so the commercial value of your copyright on the original painting is still safe. — PhilHibbs | talk 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Complex Image

Here's a good one that probably deserves more attention than it would get at WP:PUI. It would also make a good Copyright Law final exam question.

Two images:

• Image:Trimedfilm battleofchina.jpg
• Image:The Buttle of the China2.jpg

The first image was apparently compiled from two films, with some derivative authorship as well. The film on the left was made by the US Army, as shown here. So we're most likely public domain there, to the extent the content is original to that film.

The film on the right is purportedly a 1928 USSR film. Most of the shots taken from the US film were edited from the USSR film, so there's a derivative issue there as well, plus the PD may not be PD, depending on the USSR film's copyright status, which I need help determining.

Finally, somebody compiled the image, and there's definitely some creativity there. I've just asked the uploader for the identity of the compiler. (As an aside, this is a rather ambitious upload for a user with a total of only 4 edits.) It is possible that the image was compiled from an exposé found on Youtube, so there may even be another layer of derivativity.

The second image was apparently compiled from the first. The uploader says he got the image from the uploader of the first image.

Thoughts? -- But|seriously|folks  15:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Reeks of original research. We need a reliable source to do such compiling of montages. Carcharoth 15:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the editor who had tagged Image:The Buttle of the China2.jpg for speedy deletion, and I also just tagged Image:Trimedfilm battleofchina.jpg for speedy deletion. From what I understand, both of these images are derivative works, which means that while we know that some of the screen captures that were used in those images are in the public domain, these images could have been created only recently and somebody may hold the copyright for them. Correct me if I'm wrong. The summaries for both images only provide copyright status and source for the film The Battle of China, the screen captures of which were used to make both images (and only half of both images consist of screen captures from that film). No copyright status or source were provided pertaining to the images themselves. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Rabota claims to be the author of the Youtube exposé, that he extracted Image:Trimedfilm battleofchina.jpg from his film and that he has released the image into the PD. If so, that would eliminate the derivative copyright issue, but I still don't know the copyright status of the USSR film. Whether or not the copyright issues can be resolved, I'm now thinking the best course would be to list at IfD based on the WP:OR concern expressed by Carcharoth. -- But|seriously|folks  17:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Would be reasonable as fair use (but doesn't appear to be being used anywhere) since I assume the intent is to comment on the images themselves. Neither image should be being used in the user_talk space. Megapixie 13:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with this image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bb2k8-145x200.jpg

I am having a problem here. A admin wont let me change it to creative commons. Someone from the sports mogul

forums changed it to the creative commons license. He is very reliable on the forums. http://www.sportsmogul.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=&postcount=4. Clay Dreslough the creator of the game said this in the post "You have our permission to post Mogul-related artwork on the internet. This the box cover, screen shots, etc., and applies to Wikipedia, discussion forums, blogs, game reviews, etc.--Gustyfalcon 23:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yamla is correct in his analysis. Free content can be modified or sold. Dreslough didn't give permission for either of those things. 17Drew 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Rare FM image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rare-fm-logo.png

A bot has just notified me that I have not provided a fair-use rationale - I think I have...Please could someone check this out and advise me as to how to correct it if needs be... Wolf of Fenric 01:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The rationale should work. By the way, I suggest the image size be decreased a but. nadav (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jamaica Pond 1924.jpg

The above image is on the page Jamaica Pond, Massachusetts. The map is dated 1924. I deleted it from the page, and someone else put it back up. Is there an easy way to deal with this without getting into an edit war? MarkinBoston 19:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. If you run across similar copyright violations, please list them at WP:IFD. This image is now listed for deletion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with a picture I've posted (Richie Sambora article) Richie_sambora_o2.jpg

Hello,

I've posted a new picture for the Richie Sambora article a few weeks ago;

It was photographed by a friend of mine, who gave me FULL PERMISSION to use it in anyway I want to. I uploaded the picture and a few weeks later it got deleted by someone (I'd usually think it was the Wikipedia administrators, but it seems this particular person doesn't even have an account and edits other musical articles similar to this one). I tried to fix it a few times, but it got deleted again and again, time after time, and the picture you see now (Dublin 2006) is the old one.

At first I thought it was a copyright issue, so I finally renamed the pic, uploaded it on Wikimedia Commons and put it on the article again, with all copyright tags as they should be (like on other articles), but it was deleted again, a few hours ago!

The picture I'm trying to upload is much newer, much better quality, and represents the artist in a better way and I don't think anyone should get angry about me trying to improve the article and start erasing my work.

Can you please help me and straighten things out? I may seem to be missing the problem here.

I'm not very experienced with editing on Wikipedia, sorry.

Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. Bluesman (talk • contribs) 23:24, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps the image was tagged for deletion by an anonymous user, but he should have done you the courtesy of posting a note to your user talk page saying what he thought the problem was. Typically, we give uploaders a certain amount of time to fix problems where an improper tag has been placed or where the licensing is unclear.

From the currently uploaded version, I can spot several problems. First, you give the source as "associate". We actually need the name of the copyright holder; his "web name" is not meaningful for this purpose. (A Wikipedia user name is another matter; we can associate that with a specific person. We can't do that in this case.) If he doesn't want his real name out in public like that, he can send an email to the appropriate folks in the front office so we know permission actually exists. It would be helpful if he would use the template so the permission given in unambiguous. The specific license he's allowing (GFDL, Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike, whatever) must be inserted into the template in the appropriate place. (It may not be "Wikipedia only", any license that restricts commercial use, or "for educational purposes" and so on. That will result in it getting deleted. We need a free license.) He actually needs to send that email anyway, since he made the photo and is therefore owns the copyright to it. We need some record from the owner that he has in fact granted the license in the tag.

The second problem is that you name yourself as the copyright owner. This is incorrect. By international law, the person who took the picture owns it. So you should not use {{GFDL-self}}. Tag it with {{GFDL}} instead. The discrepancy between the tag and the source information may account for the earlier deletions.

The third problem is that it's redundant. Image:Richie main plz.jpg which you uploaded on July 30 is identical. (Otherwise it has the same tagging problems as the Commons version.) You can get rid of the Wikipedia copy by tagging it {{db-author}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Confused about image 'copyright tag' stuff. Anybody to help out?

Image:Niharika_Acharya.jpg

http://www.voanews.com/english/About/talent-gallery.cfm

If you visit voanews.com, copyright holder i.e voa just want to give credit to Voice of America while using photo. Hence this photo is legal.

My mobile put restriction and I could not read whole sentence while uploading. I could read only, 'copywriter holder has given'. I used opera browser 8.65 s60 2.x version. You can confirm how text desplay in browser window on nokia 6600.

VoA has NOT given permission only for wikipedia use. But VoA has given permission for photo use provided that photo credit is given to voice of america.

This image does not meet wikipedia deletion criteria. It is legal and I have given source link for confirmation.

I don't understand how to put tag with this image. Will somebody help me out?

I am new user and uploaded picture on wiki for first time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abhishka (talk • contribs) 03:23, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Might I suggest you use a computer next time? Much of this is self-explanatory if you can read all the text.

Since the photo is from Voice of America it's public domain, as are all media created by the US Government. The correct tag is {{PD-USGov-VOA}}. Given that, there's no reason to use the low resolution thumbnail, so I replaced it with the high-res version. There was no need for your elaborate justification; all we really need in cases like this is the source and the right tag.

The Summary section is supposed to contain a description of what the image is showing us, so I removed what you had there and added a brief caption. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Functional Specification document effort estimation

How do we estimate the effort for preparing the functional specifications document based on the requirements ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinrk (talk • contribs) 03:34, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

This page is for questions related to copyright of media hosted on Wikipedia's servers. Try posting your question on the appropriate Reference desk board. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

copyright tag

i'm totally LOST on this copyright tag bit. i added CAJJMEREPRESS.jpg to Cajjmere Wray's profile and don't know what to do. I'm super new to wikipedia so if you can tell me what to copy and paste into there that would be great. thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 7pm (talk • contribs) 03:38, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Basically, we need to know where you got the image, who owns it, and how we are able to legally use it here. If you can let me know that, I can give you a bit more help.

If you didn't take this photo yourself and whoever owns it hasn't released it under a free license, then we cannot use it. This is a photo of a living person, which absent extraordinary circumstances we consider to be replaceable free media. Wikipedia's policy on this subject is designed to encourage the creation of free media, which is one of this project's main goals. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I notice you uploaded a couple of different images right over each other. If one of them is free (or yours, and you're willing to license it as Wikipedia wants you to) and the other one isn't, then we should use the free one and not the other. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the use of fan art permissible? What tags should one use?

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Non-free_use I followed up on an old suggestion of using fan art to replace inherently replacable art by professional artists such as John Howe or Ted Nasmith. Is this permitted under fair use? Apparently not for Commons. Uthanc 05:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In most Commons deletion discussions, fan art is considered a derivative work and, as such, not free. See, notably, Commons:Deletion requests/Harry Potter Fan art. Considering (1) everything on Wikimedia Commons is deemed "free" (with few exceptions), and (2) most things not accepted on Commons are not free, I think that we should consider these images as not free. (Note that the "free"-ness of an image is a bit more complicated, and the fact that an image is not free on Commons does not necessarily mean that an image is not free on the English-language Wikipedia. Certain copyright laws complicate things. But I don't think that we should consider derivative works differently than Commons considers them.) They would be tagged with {{Non-free fair use in}} and, in my opinion, should have a non-boilerplate non-free use rationale (since the use of fan art doesn't seem commonplace, nor the case for fair use obvious). --Iamunknown 05:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... Now I forgot to mention the possibly of GFDL images. Now one professional artist, Tom Loback (flickr account, artworks), has already released his own Middle-earth art under the GFDL, [6] and another, Catherine Karina Chmiel, has allowed one work to be uploaded under the same. Are these examples of art (by professionals) fine if they're licensed under the GFDL? If they are, then we might use the GFDL for any more images instead of appealing to fair use. Uthanc 09:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the artists probably shouldn't be releasing their work under the GFDL, because their work is (to varying degrees) derivative from Tolkien's works. The artists can licence their creative contribution, but they can't licence the creative contribution that derives from Tolkien's works. They would probably need to devise some sort of "derivative work" fair-use license, making clear, in the case of book-derived art, that their work is based on work that the Tolkien Estate hold the copyright to, or in cases of art deriving from (say) the New Line 'The Lord of the Rings' films, to say that Tolkien Enterprises holds the copyright to. They could say that they release their creative input, but there would still need to be a "derivative of a copyright work" tag on the pics, and thus the pics would not be free. Carcharoth 11:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is incorrect. When fan art is based on work in a visual medium then yes, it's clearly derivative. But when it's related to a literary work, there are no source images to base fan art on, and the images must arise entirely from the mind of the artist. The text of Tolkien's work is copyrighted, but the ideas expressed, even if they're original with JRRT, cannot be. Tolkien Enterprises therefore has no claim to any fan art merely for illustrating a scene from one of JRRT's books. They use none of the copyrighted (or copyrightable) material. It's perfectly valid to license that art under the GFDL or whatever license the artist wants.

Possible trademark issues are another matter entirely, but that has nothing to do with copyright. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant only to repost a generalized version of my comments here over at Commons talk:Fan art, but ended up writing an essay instead. I really think this is misguided policy based on an overly-broad application of the definition of a derivative work. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Go for it, and keep us up-to-date on what happens. If Commons fails to agree, maybe Wikipedia will? Carcharoth 01:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Finding the right copyright info

I recently uploaded an image, Image:Cotterpindoozer.jpg, for use in the Fraggle Rock article. I found it at muppet.wikia.com, the Muppet Wiki site. I'm not sure what copyright info I should indicate for the image. Please advise...thank you! --Procrastinatrix 15:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The tag is probably correct to judge from the quality, although the source website doesn't say. The only other thing you need to do is add rationale showing how its use conforms to our non-free image policy, and name the copyright owner. (Probably The Jim Henson Company.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Walcoutniansbadge.jpg

Hi,

My names Ben Carrell and i have just made a new wikipedia article called "Afc Walcountians"

I have uploaded an image and some text but it says it is a copyright infringement from www.afcwalcountians.co.uk

Seeing as i own www.afcwalcountians.co.uk and have created everything on there can the notices about sopyright infringement go away

Many thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supercazzer (talk • contribs) 15:50, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

With regard to the image it doesn't say copyright infringement; it says you didn't provide any copyright information. You need to do that. If you created the image, you need to say so and release it under an appropriate free licence, then tag it accordingly so we know.

But unless you yourself created the team badge (and it's not substantially an historical coat of arms and not subject to copyright) you don't own that even if you made this particular drawing yourself. In that case it needs to conform to our non-free image policy.

The second note on your talk page that implies infringement wasn't about the image, but about the article. It was placed automatically by a bot designed to detect verbatim copying of text from the web. This is generally a copyright infringement. We cannot in any event have text here that's copyright "All rights reserved" as noted at the website, so we have to remove the text whether you actually own it or not. As it says at the bottom of every window, you must agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. You can fix this by replacing "All rights reserved" with a notice of a GFDL license. You still own the copyright, but this allows the text to be used in a way that Wikipedia needs. You can then safely delete the notice, and would be perfectly justified in replacing the text any time someone deletes it on copyright grounds. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Question on wrong page

67.128.206.152 18:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Furniture Manufactoring in Portland, oregon.  ?? for a Morgan Atchley Furniture Company. Trying to find out about the craftsmen that worked in this furniture company.

We don't deal with such questions here. Try the reference desk. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

physics

what are the measuring techniqesin temperature –—– —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.226.242.50 (talk) 18:40, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

We don't deal with such questions here. Try the reference desk. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Free Image

If an image from an official website has been released under a free liscence, how should it be tagged? Jcpizzadude 13:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly according to the license granted. If you link to the image you have in mind, I can help you pick a specific tag. It is also essential that you link to the page containing the grant of license if it is not the same as the page on which the image is found (which you should already be linking to.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

copyright and self promotion

I've noticed several nonprofit organizations similar to my own listed on wikipedia and because people often google us or ask about who we are, I thought it would be good to add info about us to wikipedia. I copied some text about our mission and what kind of things we do from our own website. But the page was deleted because of self promotion and copyright infringement. I'm a little confused as to how what I did was different from other organizations and am interested in if/how I should note that it's not copyright infringement (we own the copyright) and that I'm just describing who we are and not simply promoting us. Thanks for any help! --IREXDC

These days we have an automated process (a "bot") that looks at new articles and then searches the web for the text so as to detect copyright violations. In this case it found a match. Even if you wrote the text originally, as as a non-employee of the organization, so they themselves have no claim to the copyright, if the text is noted at the source as "All rights reserved" or something similar, we can't use it here. Any text included in Wikipedia must be licensed under the GFDL.

Chances are the organization is the owner of the text on its own website, and that this therefore was a copyright violation. You need to write your own text.

The self-promotion aspect comes into it when you're affiliated with an organization, write an article about it, but cite no external sources. Our notability guidelines aren't policy, but people are most inclined to delete an article on notability grounds under these conditions. If you want the article to be kept, cite a source other than the organization itself. (Stories appearing in newspapers and so on establish notability nicely.)

As I don't know what other NPOs you have in mind, I can't tell you what they did differently. It may just be that the bot hasn't located them yet, or they do cite external sources, or many in the community recognize them as notable even without such citations, or the source text was already freely licensed. It could be almost anything. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Can I get help getting a license for my uploaded picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCxEagles (talk • contribs) 03:59, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

The image is copyrighted and does not appear to meet the criteria for using copyrighted media on Wikipedia. 17Drew 04:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting an image

How can I remove or delete an uploaded image? --Pittmajc 05:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)pittmajc

Tag it with {{db-author}}. I found in your contributions an image that you seemed to be trying to delete and have deleted it. If you would like any of the other ones you uploaded deleted, just use {{db-author}}. --B 05:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Deprecated tag on Image:Tom benton.jpg

Above mentioned image is tagged as {{PD}}, with a note that says:

Per discussion of the collection's rights [7]: "Upon review of the relevant materials, the Library continues to believe that the photographs are in the public domain."

However, on that page there is also this:

However, patrons are advised that Mr. Kellner has expressed his concern that use of Van Vechten's photographs "preserve the integrity" of his work, i.e, that photographs not be colorized or cropped, and that proper credit is given to the photographer.

which is not consistent with public domain status. Is there some other tag that would be more appropriate? --Branislav Jovanovic 05:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably just PD-US. If the copyright has expired, then the descendants can complain, but it doesn't matter. --B 05:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be moved to the Commons, where they have the {{PD-Van Vechten}} template to specifically deal with the LoC images by this photographer. 17Drew 06:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - I moved it to Commons now, as per 17Drew's arguments. --Branislav Jovanovic 17:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Logo's Copyright

How to properly add the copyright to an image?...I mainly uploaded logos, mostly created by me...I couldn't find the correct tag or let's say the wikipedia help pages are not clear enough.

Here is an example: Image:ESHS_b.gif

BYF079: "Faïcel Ben Yedder" 07:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This image is a logo, so the copyright holder is still the organization that created it. Most likely it is non-free content and the tags could be found here. The use of images like this in articles is controlled by the non-free content criteria so please read this and if you have any questions let us know. Thanks :) - cohesion 15:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Scanned, typed list

I'm working on a potential Board of Trustees of Dartmouth College article. I obtained at a Dartmouth library a photocopy of a typewriter-written list of all the past trustees, their graduation years from the College (when applicable) and their years served as a trustee. I want to upload it to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons as a resource, but I'm totally in the dark on copyright status. It isn't attributed to anyone, it's literally just a list of names and years. I figure that since it is purely factual information, there can't be a copyright claim because it contains no originality, but (1) that still leaves me in the dark on what to put for a licensing tag and (2) I wanted to check here first. Please advise. Thanks! Dylan 07:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The licensing tag for something ineligible for copyright would be {{PD-ineligible}}. It sounds like a list of purely factual information like that would not be eligible for copyright (see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service). 17Drew 08:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:BFRS cover.jpg

I uploaded Image:BFRS cover.jpg recently, I posted a Source & a Licensing. Is it ok to take off the no fair use rationale tag? What more do I need? -- King Pika 08:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:2007-CGS-Fact-Sheet-AUG-07-SMALL.pdf

Dear Wikipedia, After uploading to Wikipedia an image and text on the Centre for Groundawter Studies, where I am the Business Manager, the following message appears.

Image copyright problem with Image:2007-CGS-Fact-Sheet-AUG-07-SMALL.pdf Image Copyright problem. Thank you for uploading Image:2007-CGS-Fact-Sheet-AUG-07-SMALL.pdf. 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 11:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please advise how I solve it to ensure the file and image are not deleted. KInd Regards, Trevor Pillar - (email removed) -- Pill0031 (talk · contribs · logs) 12:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Trevor. Basically, you need to contact the copyright holder of that document, get permission, then follow the procedures at When permission is confirmed. However, even if that document is kept on Wikipedia, it is likely that the links you are providing in articles to that document will get deleted. A better way to go about this is to add information to the articles based on that document and footnote those article additions. In the footnote, you can link to the document as hosted by Centre for Groundawter Studies. This is a much better way to get Wikipedia secondary publicity for Centre for Groundawter Studies than the approach you are taking. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Pub photos from phone

Hello, Image:Redender.jpg is just a photo from my phone in the pub... i dont know what to do to add a copyright to it... Jonathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrmedia (talk • contribs) 14:16, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm actually finding that rather hard to believe. That image is certainly not taken directly from a camera phone, and I doubt most pubs actually have such professional-quality lighting and backdrops. If you really did take that photo, show me the original, unedited image from your phone and I just might believe you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the copyright options seem to apply what do I do ?

I have the permission of the subject of the photo Image:TomV.jpg (who has told me he bought the rights to it) and the photographer to use this image on my website and to publicise the subject on the net (not just Wiki) but all of the options I pick (as I don't actually own the rights myself) say that the photo will be deleted after 7 days.

What do I do ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TVFans (talk • contribs)

Unless you can convince the copyright owner to release the image under a suitable free license, it's probably not eligible for inclusion. --Clubjuggle 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You should follow the instructions at this page to establish permission, once you have it. -- But|seriously|folks  17:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Heeelp!

I was recently sent a couple of really nice images of the Algonquin Radio Observatory by someone at Natural Resources Canada. He scraped up a few images taken by some co-workers (actually I believe he's their boss) and sent them along... one is really great.

He's perfectly happy with them being used on the wiki, but as they were taken by people working for the Crown, does that automatically imply Crown Copyright? Or does that only cover images taken as part of official duties? CC in Canada has a non-commercial clause. Is Fair Use the simplest solution here?

In any case, any advice on how to proceed?

Maury 19:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Crown copyright applies to anything "prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department." I assume that if they took pictures of the Observatory in their own time and for their own purposes, then it wouldn't qualify as being under the "direction or control" of the government. So that would mean the copyright still belongs to the people who took the picture and you'd have to ask them to freely license the pictures (via directions at WP:COPYREQ). If, however, the images were created in an official capacity, then Canada's Crown copyright applies. This kind of copyright protection is probably not free enough for Wikipedia (it may forbid commercial use, for one).

As for the possibility of using the images via fair use: this won't work, since the images probably violate WP:NFCC#1 (free images could be created in their stead) nadav (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity's sake: Canada's Crown Copyright is not only not free enough for Wikipedia, it's not free at all. The Crown possesses the same rights as any other copyright holder for a period of 50 years after publication. It's true that Crown Copyright material is very often licensed, but even where this is true it is, as you say, non-commerical. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that if these individuals did create the images on their own time, then the individuals who photographed them own the copyrights -- and you would need their permission to release the images under a free license. While the person who sent you the images may be ok with you doing so, he actually has no authority to make that decision, since he's (apparently) not the copyright owner.See WP:COPYREQ for information on gaining permission to redistribute. --Clubjuggle 20:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the problem is that we may not be able to track down the original photographers. I'll ask though. The free-use question is sort of round-about; the person in question is absolutely happy with us using the images for any purpose, but he's afraid that if anyone asks anything officially, all beurocratic hell will break loose. Is there nothing that can cover this case? Or perhaps someone could suggest a license that he might be able to approve? Maury 21:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything that can be done. The person who who handed you the pictures has no say authority in this regard, as far as I can tell. The only way these images can be used is if the copyright holders (i.e. the photographers) agree to permit use under free licenses. nadav (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright information for photograph taken by a fan

I recently uploaded an image to Wikipedia, but am unsure of the copyright information. It is a picture of a living person, as taken by a fan. -- Acne Wash (talk · contribs · logs) 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The fan who took the photograph owns the copyright. --Clubjuggle 21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Acne. Basically, you need to contact that fan, get permission, then follow the procedures at When permission is confirmed. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Suicide letter

Would a screenshot of a suicide letter taken from a television broadcast be eligible for copyright? I know the fact that it's from a broadcast doesn't make a difference on its copyright status, but I'm not sure if the text and handwriting would be considered a creative work. If the text would be copyrighted, would a screenshot of the end of the letter saying "I'm sorry Good-bye" be {{PD-ineligible}}? 17Drew 07:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the image may be copyrighted as usual. The creative work would be the photography, angle, lighting etc. The text can also be separately copyrighted. Maybe the handwriting itself wouldn't be sufficiently creative, but the content of the letter would probably be. I wouldn't think any part of that would be PD-ineligible though. If the text was in PD, and the photography was non-creative it might be PD, but not PD-ineligible. - cohesion 15:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that pictures of two-dimensional works were considered Wikipedia:Public domain#Non-creative works. 17Drew 20:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. decision may be applicable if the letter was photographed straight on for the sole purpose of accurately reproducing the letter. Anyway, the suicide letter itself is probably copyrighted if it's longer than a few words. nadav (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, that's true. The phrase "I'm sorry Good-bye" is too short to be eligible for copyright though, right? So a shot of the end of the letter with just that part wouldn't be enough to be qualify for copyright? 17Drew 20:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Bridgeman Art Library decision relates to photographs of 2D images in which the photographed subject is already public domain. For example, If I take a photograph of a painting that is 200 years old, the photograph is not copyrightable by myself because there was no creative input by me. This is not a way to de-copyright something. For example, if an artist painted something last week and I take a photo it is not PD-ineligible. The subject of the photograph is important. Also this only applies to photographs of 2D artwork that have no creative component. An photograph of a scene including, for example, an art historian looking over an old PD painting could be copyrighted, because there is creative work, the lighting, the angle etc. Does that make sense? - cohesion 16:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A legal snag with 6 new images

• User:Peter morrell sent me 6 images to upload for him, with the usual licencing for self-made images. They are photographs which he took in Biddulph Grange. See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Biddulph Grange for why. Attempt to upload one of them (Image:Pm bg parterres.jpg) caused unexpected system behavior and automatic speedy-delete-tagging. See Image talk:Pm bg parterres.jpg. Anthony Appleyard 21:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted the image because it has a "Wikipedia only" license tag. Did you choose "The copyright holder gave me permission to use this work only in Wikipedia articles (no other terms specified)" option from the drop down list? If so, it will automatically be flagged for speedy deletion. The creator of the image needs to release the image under a suitable license like "Creative commons sharealike attribution license". Let me know if you need a hand. Papa November 22:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• User:Peter morrell says in User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Biddulph Grange that the way to upload an image is too complicated for him to follow, so he asked me to upload them for him. I chose the available tag that looked most like the truth, which is presumably that he wants me to upload these 6 images on his behalf with the usual Wikipedia licencing for images. Anthony Appleyard 22:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's fine, but he must choose which rights he wants to release as there's no "usual license" for Wikipedia images. Unless he specifically states which rights he is releasing, he reserves full rights on the images. Unfortunately, it's not enough for him to just say he is happy for the image to appear on Wikipedia. This is because ideally all images on the site should be free for anyone to use (not just for them to appear here). If he is happy to release the images under a free license, I think it would be enough for him to write on the his user page: "I, the creator of the images <enter image names here>, release them under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license and give User:Anthony Appleyard permission to upload them on my behalf". You would then need to place {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} on each image page, and provide a link to his statement. I'd appreciate other editors' view on this though. Alternatively, you can request his permission by email. It would be a lot easier if he uploaded them himself though. I'll happily guide him through the upload if you are able to change his mind. Thanks Papa November 22:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. Basically, when the photo owner gives you images to upload, you need to follow the procedures at When permission is confirmed. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have received an email from User:Peter morrell saying "you can regard them as yours!...I did my archiving no probs. Please just accept the photos as if they are your own property...", so I have uploaded the other 5 affected images with licence GFDL. Is that acceptable? Anthony Appleyard 09:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• You should follow the procedures at this link too. Thanks Papa November 10:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Elected Public Officials

I don't know if this topic has been covered yet. I just uploaded two images, the "official state photos" of Florida Governor Charlie Christ Image:FL-Gov_crist.jpg and Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottcamp Image:FL-ltgov_kottkamp.jpg. I cited "fair use" of the image of an elected government official; and obviously the release of "official photos" indicates that the State of Florida WANTS people to use the photos. Available for download from a State of Florida website: http://www.flgov.com/downloads The creative commons license does not seem to cover this. Any opinions? Gamweb 04:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this has been covered. Unfortunately these are non-free images just like any other non-free images. The State of Florida reserves all rights to materials downloaded from its website, and states that "For purposes of this Agreement, the use of any such [downloaded] material on any other Web site or networked computer environment is prohibited."[8] Non-free images of living people are not allowed on Wikipedia by WP:NFCC#1, since someone could take new, free photos instead. nadav (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Images

I uploaded an image but forgot to include the "GNU Free Documentation License" in it and now I don't know how to add it. The image is Image:Projects 85- Dan Perjovschi.JPG.

Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breakyunit (talk • contribs) 05:26, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think this can be considered a free image. It's a photo of an artistic work by Dan Perjovschi, so he (partially) owns the copyright. You may be able to use the photo in the article about him in accordance with WP:NONFREE. Make sure to include a detailed fair use rationale on the image description page. (Just click on the "edit this page" tab at the top of the image page to change any details/licensing) nadav (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

multimedia tecnology and application

why is copyright law so problematic for multimedia technology and application —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.231.2 (talk) 07:50, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

It isn't. Pretty trivial compared to say tax laws.Geni 14:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Tax law is much more deterministic and rule-based. Thousands of pages of code, regulations, and commentary to every possible circumstance. Copyright law has only a few pages of code; you get into the thicket and emerge from there to the reat unknown rather quickly. Wikidemo 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mostly because people wish it wasn't there, so they try to twist it to make it not apply. But it does. If you just leave it alone and let it mean exactly what it says, it's fairly straightforward. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Crustacean barnstar.png

I have recently uploaded Image:Crustacean barnstar.png, created from two images, Image:Original Barnstar.png and Image:Crab-icon.png, both not covered by copyright. What copyright tag should I use for it? It would not likely be considered (entirely) my own work... Many thanks. --Crustaceanguy 13:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Up to you I would probably go for {{PD-user}}.Geni 14:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your two source images are in the public domain and therefore are not protected by copyright. Your compilation of them is protected by copyright. I would personally use {{pd-self}} in this case, but you can also use and of the ones listed at WP:ICT#For image creators.. --Clubjuggle 15:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

increased hurricane intensity

how hurricane affects human society —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.171.90.25 (talk) 19:33, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

This page is for questions related to copyright on media uploaded to Wikipedia. The place to get this question answered is as the reference desk. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image on The VonFrederick Group site is the Crest of The VonFrederick Group. If you visit www.vonfrederick.com, you will also see the image of the crest. I hope this clarifies the conundrum, or please ask me any further question. Thanks.

Dr. Lionel von Frederick Rawlins

--Charlema 21:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Uploading an Image

Greetings,

I've been using Wikipedia for about one year now, and have just recently thought about editing pages. I was navigating through Olympics pages one day, when I came upon the Mark Spitz page. I noticed that there was not a picture for the Mark Spitz page, so I thought that I might edit this page into having a depiction of the athlete. So after that, I went to the upload wizard to find out how to add an image to a page, and found that it was much more complicated than I had expected. What I was mostly confused about was how people were able to obtain such information like the, photographer, copyright, place the photo was taken etc., when you find the image from a site that does not give any information on the photograph.

Just wondering, is it mostly people who take their own photographs and put them on Wikipedia, that post the photos, and if not, can you advise me in how Wikipedians get hold of copyrights, photographer names and the other required information for uploading an image.

Thank you, --Í'ɱ Рřʘ 00:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

you should not be uploading pics of living people that you do not hold the copyright on (ie only upload ones you took yourself).Geni 12:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where a fair use image is justifiable, if the point is to illustrate him in competition. Since he no longer competes, a free image cannot be made showing this. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If the point is to show him as a person, what he looks like, and who he is, a free use picture of an older Mark Spitz is good and a non-free use is unjustified. He is just as much of a human being now as before. If there is a need to show him in competition for purposes of illustrating the article, that adds substantially to the reader's understanding of the subject, and could not be served by words alone or a free use image, then a non-free image of him in competition may be justified. But ask yourself, do you really need a picture of him swimming to illustrate that he won a swim meet? A picture of a gymnast in the middle of a 10.0 olympic performance might be justified because their form, poise, etc., at the moment, could help the reader understand how they got a 10.0. Is there anything so iconic about Mark Spitz in performance? Something about his technique, etc? That's what puts this at the borderline. Wikidemo 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding copyright

Hi

I got a message saying I needed to add a copyright tag to two images. Which I think I have done properly.

I was wondering if that means the images will not be deleted now?

How do you know?

--Beagleskin 16:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

do you hold the copyright on those images?Geni 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do.

--Beagleskin 16:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

did you create them?Geni

Yes I did.--Beagleskin 16:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

the images should be fine then.Geni 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)--Beagleskin 16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Artwork vs. photography?

I would like to use the painting found here. It was painted in 1852 by famous Toronto painter William Armstrong. Does the normal Canadian copyright apply here? IE, anything older than 1935 is PD? Or is it different for paintings? Maury 13:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No different for paintings in this case. You might want to crop down to just the painting, though (i.e., crop out the drop shadow). You should be able to tag it with {{PD-art-life-70}} and {{PD-Canada}} --Clubjuggle 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Unholy three.png

Being published well before 1970, could this be {{PD-Pre1978}}? I see no copyright sign or notice anywhere on it. 68.39.174.238 18:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It depends whether the copyright was renewed. See WP:PD#Published works. --Clubjuggle 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Copyright Law

I have been notified by Orphanbot that my images (both can be found QCW-05 needs a copyright tag. I'm sort of new at this so any help would be great! I can assure you that the images are covered under Article 5 subsection 2 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (中华人民共和国著作权法) as being from a public news piece and therefore not subject to copyright but the problem is that I can't find a template tag thng to use for this, all I can find is one for Chinese images that are over 50 years old. So if somebody can point me in the right direction then I'll make the changes as quickly as possible. Semi-Lobster 03:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has a tag for this, commons:Template:PD-PRC-exempt. However, it does not appear to apply to these images, since they look to be just pictures of guns and not "mere facts or happenings reported by the mass media," which is how the Chinese government defines "news on current events." nadav (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that it says "mere facts or happenings reported by the mass media"? The Chinese government website here (http:/www.ahga.gov.cn/government/fagui/mf4/low_view1.htm/) is translated by the PRC government is:

 (1) laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs;
 other documents of legislative, administrative and  judicial  nature;  and
 their official translations;
 (2) news on current affairs; and
 (3) calendars, numerical tables, forms of general use and formulas.'

The articles on sina.com is about the introduction of a new Chinese firearm and this government translations does not mentions 'facts and happenings' and is linked from the Intellectual property in the People's Republic of China page. Semi-Lobster 10:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

hi, my homework is that i have to write an essey i dont know how or how to start one. the topic is about why girls in 7th grade have it easyer that boys? this is my first time doing this. i realy need your help please is due tomorrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaya24 (talk • contribs) 05:14, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Hello to all, i have been a member for a while, but only recently have i added anything to wikipedia. I was working on a page which uses a picture of a small village. The image is from the website listed in the links section of the actual article. I emailed the website editor and asked for permission to use the picture here, it was agreed and i have the persons email if verification is needed. I dont know anything about the tag systems that wikipedia has asked for, because i know that the owner has given permission then it is okay. Anyway i have uploaded the picture countless times and it keeps getting deleted. Any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedary (talk • contribs) 08:57, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Need correct lisencing tags for Image:Georgi-Gladyshev.jpg?

I uploaded an image from the back cover of the 2003 book Supramolecular Thermodynamics is a Key to Understanding Phenomenon of Life – What is Life from a Physical Chemist’s Viewpoint (in Russian) published by the Russian Academy of Sciences, ISBN: 5-93972-198-2. I contacted the copyright holder: Georgi Gladyshev and he granted copyright permission, via email, for use of this photo in Wikipedia. Another user has put it up for speedy, because he says it fails criteria #1 of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, i.e. that it is replaceable. Isn’t there another license tag I can add, since it is a public image off the book written by the person in the article? Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 02:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Close up of 2002 historical site marker

The copyrighted text on this sign can be clearly read. Do we have an exception that would cover something like this? Should we? -- But|seriously|folks  17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess we don't. The US really needs a much more liberal freedom of panorama law... In any case, there shouldn't be a reason for us to display the full text of the sign, since it doesn't add any understanding. The picture can be reshot from further away just to show that a historical marker exists, and the text can be paraphrased and cited to the "Ohio Historical Society" or whoever wrote it. nadav (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC) It would also be more useful to have an image of the Tanks Memorial Stadium itself, no? nadav (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The US equivalent of panorama law is to say that the copying is incidental, insignificant, or de minimis. Courts and experts are inconsistent with their terminology and classification but the effect is the same. Sometimes they say it's not even considered infringement territory; other times they say that it's a special kind of fair use that doesn't require traditional four-factor balancing analysis. As with everything in copyright the boundaries are not clearly defined.

However, whatever the limits are, this sign is clearly copying the text. The photo wasn't taken to show what the sign looks like, it was taken to copy the text on the sign. From a copyright perspective I would say it's the exact same as transcribing the words...plus the flower design.

The photographer has a copyright he/she can give to GDFL. However, it is a derivative work so the underlying copyright to the text can't be granted. I doubt it would pass non-free use because it's more detail than needed to illustrate the existence of the marker or most any other purpose I can imagine.Wikidemo 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What about this close up photograph of a marker in England: image here Snowman 20:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the commons page commons:Freedom of panorama#United_Kingdom, even in the UK freedom of panorama does not apply to signs. So I don't think it's ok. nadav (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the blue plaque pics? I've taken a few of those. I'd like to see them stay, if possible. The way I read the link you gave me, it says that the law doesn't apply to 2D stuff because they are not creative. ie. copyright doesn't apply, so no freedom of panorama needs to be invoked. Of course, if the text is copyrighted, that is a different matter. But in the case of heritage plaques, I doubt the text is copyrighted. In the case of museum description signs, yes, the text will be copyrighted. Carcharoth 00:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, from my memory on U.S. state historical signs, copywriters sell the material to the federal states and the state owns all of the text. Now, we all know federal images are PD - how about textual material? Guroadrunner 18:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The 2D vs 3D issue doesn't relate to the copyright in the underlying work. It just means that a photographer of a 2D work does not have copyright in the photo. The original item is still protected by copyright.

As far as governmental works (both images and text), only works of the US federal government are excluded from copyright, because of a specific statute. Works of state governments are protected by copyright. -- But|seriously|folks  19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actor photos

Hello,

Like the rest of the people on the page I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia and am learning things the hard way by ramming my head up against things.

I have illustrated a couple articles (ones I did, ones already written that I expanded) with stills of a still living actor but of ones that were from lobby cards or a studio photograph sent to fans around late 50's early 60's. I asked the website of the actor (not run by him, just by fans) for their permission to use some of their images to illustrate pieces. They enthusaistically gave their permission for it to be used in Wikipedia, but now I'm being attacked by a 'bot' (just learned what that word is!)

Now, number one, though the actor is still alive, the art work necessary is from the late 50's and 60's, so there's no way I could go back in a time machine to take my own photos. Number two, current photos of the actor would in no way do justice to the articles. In the case of stills from lobby cards and all, the artist at that time had no rights, they just worked for the studio. In time the studio that releases the films is taken over several times by different media conglomerates. Though an actual photo taken off the film availble on DVD would be an admitted violation of copyright, I don't see how late 50's early 60's artwork or fan photos would come under this.

To add some more information, when I contacted the organisation they say that star and about every other star attends various conventions where they sell old stills and artwork of them and they say stuff that old is in the public domain.

Could you provide some simple information on this please, to give the details this is concerning-

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:2peterbrown.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:2peterbrown.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission,

The image has been granted permission, it is for educational and non-commercial use (I am not making any money or favours out of this). Is it possible 'another Wikipedia user' just might be a vandal or the internet equivilent of the pre-schooler drawing in books with his or her crayons? Thank youWaukegan 06:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

wikipedia does not accept permission for educational use or non-commercial use only. Wikipedia needs images to be released under a free licsense. In this case since you do not hold the copyright that would not appear to be posible.Geni 12:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't a fair use claim be made here, since a useful free alternative is not available, and cannot be made? --Clubjuggle 17:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In nearly all cases a copyrighted image of a living person is considered replaceable (and therefore is inappropriate) because a new free image could be made. The times when that is not the case is an active subject of discussion for the guideline page WP:NONFREE. The current wording, which I added last night and is therefore too new to rely on completely, suggests that an old non-free image may be irreplaceable if it illustrates the career of a person whose notability rests on their appearance, and they no longer appear that way. Under this theory, in the scenario where RuPaul stops cross-dressing and we find that there's not a single free image of him/her appearing in costume as a woman (unlikely but this is a hypothetical), then a non-free image may be necessary to illustrate his/her career. By contrast, in an article about Mel Gibson the man, we can assume that if there were not a single free image to be found, it's still not okay to use a copyrighted image because someone could always go take a new photo. The fact that he may be un-posed, older, and not as strapping as in his max max days, is not pertinent. The new image isn't as pretty but it does the job we need. There's a line to draw there on replaceability, whether a new free image would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Note that Wikipedia has concerns to limit the number of non-free images that go beyond just what's allowable under fair use law. Using the copyrighted image is probably legal both under fair use and because it's okay with him. But we say thanks but no thanks to that, we would rather use a free image. To see how this plays out in your situation it might help to know the details rather than discuss in the abstract. Wikidemo 17:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Wikidemo, for your prompt and informative reply (are you with Wikipedia? I can't tell the colour of your uniform). I like your examples and they make sense, however let's use your example of Mel Gibson.

If I did an article on Mel, and I then flew to Hollywood or where ever he lives, throw gravel at his window, and snap his photo when he looks out the window shouthing 'Hey you punks!' I think I've committted a violation of his rights by snapping a photo and using it (like the Paparazzi do I guess) without his permission. On the other hand if I write to him and say could you please send a current photo for an image for Wikipedia and he sends one, we might have the problem of Wikipedia accepting advertising for his image, in that our hypothetical Mr G knows he will be appearing in Wik and sends an image that will be designed to present him in a flattering light that may be seen by casting people.

Surely there must be some sort of date we can accept of photos and artwork that is not licensed or required to be licensed?

Thanks againWaukegan 22:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not with Wikipedia. I say "we" and you can too, we're all part of this noble project. Yes to throwing rocks. Even if it may be difficult, expensive, or dangerous for you, somebody could take a new snapshot. Neither Wikipedia nor the law has seen fit to ban phtogoraphs that are aggressively obtained. So you can use a picture you take at a concert or in a museum despite a sign saying that's not allowed, I don't think Wikipedia has banned that (yet). If you invade someone's privacy by sneaking into their house that's a different matter with the law at least. Not sure whether that's come up on Wikipedia. You would be surprised. Some professional portrait photographers have donated high quality pictures they own of celebrities from photo sessions. Also, many people appear at lectures, concerts, signings, on the street, etc. Wikipedia wants to encourage people to go out and take these pictures rather than just sitting on their computer and complaining that it would be too much bother. So if a paparazzo can do it you can too! The exception might be someone who is incarcerated with no visitors, in medical isolation, running from the law, hostile foreign head of state, or otherwise almost completely inaccessible (these are my silly examples...in fact, I'm just reasoning here, not stating anything official) Wikidemo 23:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No to throwing rocks. That would be trespassing, and possibly vandalism. Yes to getting a photo in public. The reason celebrities can't stop paparazzi is because it's not illegal to take pictures of people when they're somewhere publicly visible. Stepping onto someone else's private property is another matter entirely, and we do not condone illegal actions.

And if I catch you taking flash photos in a museum, I will hunt you down and give you the deepest wedgie of your life. They're banned for a reason: repeated exposure to bright lights like a flash is potentially damaging to artwork. Not even the Met banned non-flash photography last time I was there, but in that case you have to take what you can get.

Yes, there are cases where fair-use photos of living people are allowable, in cases where it's not reasonably possible for a free photo to be made. Mel isn't one of them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out that certain things are not Wikipedia's concern. If you throw rocks at a window that's between you, Mel Gibson, and the local police. Similar issue with museums and rock concerts. Many museums have historically banned all photography so they could control all the extant photos of works that would otherwise be public domain or fair uses. Courts have recently ruled otherwise but in the past they thought that by having the only good picture of an old painting they could use copyright to prevent others from reproducing the picture for books, posters, etc. The flash thing sounds like self-serving nonsense on the museum's part and is dubious in terms of the overall number of photons impacting a work of art over its expected life but science is a complicated thing and I'll keep an open mind. Nevertheless, it's not Wikipedia's concern how many torts, contract breaches, crimes, and social offenses you might have committed to get your picture. The fact that you would have to commit a tort or crime to get an image is a good argument that it's not replaceable; the fact that you would have to know someone, get lucky, be patient, or travel to a foreign country is not a good argument. Wikidemo 03:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but let's not say things like "yes to throwing rocks". If someone breaks the law on his own to get a photo that's one thing, but if he did it because you told him to, that's quite another. Waukegan probably takes your meaning correctly since its his example, but he's not the only one reading this.

The literature seems divided on the subject of flash damage to art. On the one hand I find institutions like the Smithsonian prohibiting it on those grounds where old fabrics or pigments are involved, but not generally otherwise. Since they're a US government trust, all gift shop material produced by them is PD anyway, so marketability shouldn't be an issue. On the other, it seems that there's research claiming the opposite. So it's probably true in some cases but not others. If a museum prohibits flash but allows tripods, allowing a good photo to be taken with longer exposure times, it's a safe bet they're acting in the interests of conservation. In those cases ambient lighting will be carefully controlled in general, and indeed at the Met exhibits involving fabric always had much more subdued lighting than the painting and sculpture galleries. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was peripherally involved in an issue involving one building in DC where the feds basically allowed direct sun from a skylight to fall on some murals that were a national treasure. The skylights leaked. Guess what? Then they painted them over, punched holes through for wiring, and totally forgot them for 50 years. You should see the conservation bills. So much for the public trust. But yse....of course I'm not advocating for breaking the law, and if anyone uses my comments as an excuse for stalking a celebrity heaven help them. The "yes" part is meant as a slightly humorous way of confirming the original poster's earnest question, whether Wikipedia requires people to go to great lengths to produce a free picture when a copyrighted one is readily available. Thanks for the great conversation, btw. Wikidemo 03:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, thank you for your comments all of you. I'm rather new to all this and home with the flu, so I see what I'm missing by working. I was interested in your photo by surprise comments. My second part of the question was the part about the celebrity only allowing a photo that he or she had endorsed (i.e. one taken by a professional or they and their agents inspecting your work and approving or disapproving it). From what limited knowledge I have of celebrities and other people as well is that when some people get on in years they don't want to be remembered with a photo taken in their nursing home. Some stars are only allowed to be photographed from certain angles or with certain lighting and if a picture of say, Sean Connery snapped sleeping outside, whilst being taken by a Wikipedia contributor may draw that celebrities ire and threats.

Would a caption such as "Maureen O'Hara (for example) in the film 'Mr Hobbs Takes A Vacation' 1962" be valid for an article on Ms O'Hara? You are stating the year and the artwork or still may not be the property of someone as opposed to a still from the film itself that would be. Someone like Ms O'Hara (just an example, I haven't been in touch with her though she's my favourite actress) may not want to have a photo of her at her age, especially when she's remembered for films from quite some time ago...

SO A QUESTION IS-Will we have to wait until some actor/actress dies until we can use an image of them in their famous films? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waukegan (talk • contribs) 01:07, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I also enjoyed the information on flash bulbs in museums and hope everyone has been as illuminated on the issue as I have. Thanks again everyone, hope to hear from youWaukegan 07:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's backtrack

The original poster said that when he/she contacted the representatives for the actor, they said the material from the 1950s/60s are public domain? Does that mean things have fallen into public domain, or what's going on there? It sounds like that is the key to the whole thing because if we have readily accessible PD material, then... bingo! Guroadrunner 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth Images

can google earth images be used, and if so, how should it be credited? !!Treezum!! 21:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Google earth images are copyrighted, so they cannot be used. Sorry! Calliopejen1 06:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:CCI.jpg

I need help determining which license should be used for Image:CCI.jpg. I got off of the school board's website, which can be located at [9] for the specific High School. There are currently no alternatives available. The image will be used on the Centennial Collegiate article.

Please notify me on my talk page.

Thanks,

Haseo9999 22:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a response on your talk page. Guroadrunner 18:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I will work on getting a fair use image immediately. For now, I nominated it for deletion on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 30#Image:CCI.jpg till I get a fair-use image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseo9999 (talk • contribs) 20:33, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I am now seriously confused about fair use rational

I got a notice just now about Image:Hohenheim of Light (FMA).JPG, which bothers me immensely; I went through the trouble of checking each of my fair use images, adding additional liscenses where apropriete, and updating the fair use rational for all of them with that new large line by line template we gat a few monthes back. Why am getting a message telling me this isn't enough? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "bad rationale" tag by BetacommandBot. The image only appears for that character and seems to be within the fair use. As it is an animated character, it is not like you can get a "free image" of this "living human" (Honenheim is animated) unless one of the episodes falls into the public domain. Guroadrunner 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You. I was fairly certain that the bot was in the wrong here, but to be safe I wanted a neutral party to check it just to be sure. I would have removed the bad rational tag myself, but people get suspicous when the one who uploaded an image removes detramental tags from the image. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jack White - mug shot.jpg

If a celebrity gets arrested and this becomes the subject of media attention, would a nonfree mugshot (such as the above image) be acceptable under our fair use standards? Unless there's critical commentary of the image itself, surely mugshots don't really warrant a place in an article? I asked a similar question about mugshots earlier this year, but there wasn't really a solid answer. Spellcast 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are mugshots considered under copyright?

Forgive me, but why are they considered copyrighted? I've always seen American mugshots used freely as if no restrictions exist? Guroadrunner 18:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Received a request to use my Flickr photo

A guy wants to use a photo I have posted on Flickr in his Wikipedia article (or more precisely, he wants to edit the photo and use the edited version in his article). I currently have the photo's licence set to "All Rights Reserved". He has asked me to change the licence, but I'm not satisfied with his explanation of Wikipedia's licensing requirements. I don't want to change the licence until I've seen his edit. Assuming his edit is OK, I'm happy to allow him to use the edited photo in his Wikipedia article, with me being acknowledged as the photographer, but not for any other purpose. Aside from that, I want to retain the maximum rights I can over the photo, including his edit. What do I need to do? Brettm8 14:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brettm8, Wikimedia content is ideally supposed to be completely free for anyone to use. Images should only appear on Wikipedia if the creator agrees to release them under a free license. It's fine to require attribution for your images, but you can't be selective about who uses them or for what purpose. If you want to prevent people from doing things such as incorporating your image in company logos (without paying you), it's safer for you to politely refuse the editor's request. Let me know if you'd like more information. Thanks, Papa November 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello - pretty much because it's Wikipedia, the mission (or beliefs) of Wikipedia state that what can be put onto Wikipedia needs to be licensed as free content, meaning it will be out of your control - including for other purposes outside of Wikipedia. (It's sort of like a donation of material that can be shared mostly everywhere.) We can accomodate allowing you to be credited, but not for you to maintain ownership. Overall it sounds like this conflicts with your wishes for the image. I can empathize as I have material of my own that I am hesitant to release as "free" myself. -- Guroadrunner (a Wikipedia user)

How to tag an image created by myself

How do add a copyright tag to the image Image:Nairobi_(8).JPG Inagatt 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)inagatt

Looks like you got it figured out with the GDFL tag. Nice photo! Guroadrunner 18:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wish to use a picture where permission for use on wikipedia was granted.

I've requested permission from the UK National Archives (UK) to include a diagram (picture) on the effects of strategic bombing into the Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II article and other such articles on Wikipedia.

The Diagram is located here

The response from the National Archives was as follows:

---

You may place this item on a Wikipedia page without charge, provided that it is at low resolution, and accompanied by a disclaimer which states that no commercial use may be made of the image without the permission of The National Archives Image Library, at

image-library@nationalarchives.gov.uk

You can use the website image, credited to:

The National Archives of the UK, ref. AIR48/70

---

How do I proceed in order to upload it? Trying to use the, "permission to use on wikipedia" license brings up the speedy deletion box, so that does not seem as a good plan.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 18:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well..., here's the tricky wicket. Even though someone says it can be used for Wikipedia, if they say "no commercial use", then it can't be put on the Wikipedia. The reason why is because Wikipedia wants material that can be freely spread around to both commercial and non-commercial sites -- basically free and open material -- and that "no commercial use without permission" sinks it. Items uploaded with the "permission to use on wikipedia" format are automatically tagged as not "free enough" and therefore need to go. If you have any questions, feel free. Guroadrunner 20:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Work that appears to be out of copyright

I uploaded Image:Stipple.png in the days before we were so careful about image copyrights. I provided two rationales. The primary one was that it appears to be out of copyright.

The secondary one, which has been challenged, is that I believe it to be fair use. I don't agree with the challenge, but it doesn't matter, as that was only a "backup" rationale, so I've removed it and changed the tag to PD-US.

The main point is that an online search does not show this one as having had its copyright renewed.

If people don't think that's good enough, then go ahead and delete the image. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This image does not have a copyright tag

Is it O.K. if I remove that tag from the image: Yarlang_tsango_river_tibet.jpg since it is a NASA image and I have placed a {{PD-USGov}} tag on it? Mattisse 23:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. In fact I went ahead and did that and also moved Image:Yarlang_tsango_river_tibet.jpg to Commons. (I'd never moved anything to Commons before, I hope it worked). Guroadrunner 11:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chika with high commissioner kolade-1- (2).jpg

i have updated the page ihope

"This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It will be deleted after Tuesday, 4 September 2007" does not hold.--Motegole 09:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone check that the image I moved to commons was done right?

As part of Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#This_image_does_not_have_a_copyright_tag earlier on this page, I moved an image to commons. I have never done this before, so could someone check that everything is good? The image is Image:Yarlang_tsango_river_tibet.jpg. -- Guroadrunner 11:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverse Copyright

Here's a copyright question the other way round...

What's the law when a contributor to Wikipedia subsequently uses her own contribution in a print publication? Must she or must she not refer to WP? Should she (legally or ethically) use her username and/or real name?

Help please!!!--Naime Tulum 14:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The user can use her contributions however she wants, with or without attribution and under any license or none at all. The only thing is that she can only use her contributions that way; for example, I could not use an entire article that way if I've worked on it but other people have too. 17Drew 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Main image for Ariana Richards article

Hello!

I wonder if you can help me. There is an image on the homepage of the Ariana.org website that I have asked permission to use that I would like to use legally as the main image on her wikipedia page.

I understand that my recent attempts to post the image have been deleted. I think I still have the jpg I have uploaded (but not submitted yet) but I'm confused on whether I should be the one to actually display it. I do respect and fully understand the Wikipedia policy on using images, but I'm not quite sure about what is the best way for me to actually display the image.

I would also like some advice on posting a few pictures of scenes from her films and what legality I have on presenting them onto the page.

Another picture I would like to include is a picture of one of her paintings (the Lady of the Dahlias as mentioned on the page) which I have got and can take the actual picture myself, would the use of this image be legal?

Kind regards.

--Andyroojackson 15:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It depends entirely on what permission you asked for and what permission is granted. Wikipedia must have a free license in order to host it here, except for certain special circumstances. Any image submitted with permission for Wikipedia only, or for non-commercial or educational use only, will be speedily deleted. Under certain circumstances Wikipedia will accept images as fair use, but almost always never applies to living persons even when it's permissible under the law. The goal of this project is to create a free encyclopedia, and non-free images are not consistent with that goal. So where it's possible (even theoretically) for a free image conveying the same information to be made, we do not allow non-free ones.

To be certain that you ask for and get the right kind of permission, and what to do afterward to confirm it, please see the guideline. The wrong kind of permission is as good as no permission at all, so this is important.

As for photos of her paintings and film screenshots, since these are always going to be covered under copyright, a limited number of them can be used since no free equivalent will be available. (This is the case even if you take the photo yourself. The painting itself is covered under copyright, so we must consider that.) But they must be used in the context of criticism or other commentary on her work. Please be sure to add the appropriate tag to the image page -- {{fair use in|Ariana Richards}} -- and add a rationale describing specifically how use of the image conforms to policy. Then make sure you actually insert them into the article, since orphaned non-free media will also be speedily deleted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

copyright

Well the image I posted was taken by me of me owm uniform so what are the copyright procedures for that. Image:Arid Woodland.JPG

You already own the copyright on it -- that happens automatically as soon as you take the picture -- but Wikipedia needs it under a free license. There are a number of them you can choose from. Pick one and then either add the tag to the image page manually, or select it from the dropdown menu on the image upload page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Russian Air Marshal

Is the image on the right useable on wikipedia for the article Alexander Novikov? Soviet Air Force image from 1945. SGGH ^speak! 21:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)